Criminal Misc. No.31806-M OF 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.31806-M OF 2010(O&M) Date of decision:2nd February, 2011 Bhushan Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner with the petitioner in person. Ms. Mansi Meen, respondent No. 2 in person. Ms. Neelam, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby he has declined the application for permanent release of the Criminal Misc. No.31806-M OF 2010(O&M) 2 passport of the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No. 9 dated 10.01.2007, registered at P.S.Tripuri, Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is employed with Petronet LNG Limited & posted at Bharuch (Gujarat) and stated that presently he is posted at New Delhi. It is further contended that on account of his job profile he is required to travel abroad frequently at the very short notices as a part of his job for attending conferences. On 22.02.2007 while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala had directed the petitioner to surrender his passport before the police. Thereafter, since the petitioner had to go to abroad, he moved an application before the appropriate court to release the passport or permission to allow him to go to Seoul(Korea). The trial court granted the permission to the petitioner to visit Seoul(Korea) after furnishing the bail bonds of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Thereafter, each time he has to take the permission for going abroad or release of the passport for his official visit to go abroad. Each time after returning back, he is required to surrender the the same. It is stated that trial court has released the passport on various occasions on his funishing bail bond and a surety of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The details of the same is mentioned in paragraph 31 of the petition which reads as under:- i. For visiting Bangkok, Thailand in March, 2008 Criminal Misc. No.31806-M OF 2010(O&M) 3 ii. For visiting Seoul, Korea in May 2008 iii. For visiting Darlington, UK in July 2008 iv. For visiting Rotterdam, Netherlands in October 2008 v. For visiting Abu Dhabi, UAE in November 2008 vi. Hiroshima, Japan in December 2008 vii. Visiting USA, SPAIN and UK in September 2009 viii. For visiting Abu Dhabi in July 2010 ix. For visiting USA in August 2010 x. Visiting Canada in Sept' 10 The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition(CRL.) No. 89 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was disposed of with the following direction:- “There is substance in the submission made on behalf of the Union of India and accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to make appropriate application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the pending proceedings either for return of his passport permanently or as and when he wishes to go to abroad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall pass Criminal Misc. No.31806-M OF 2010(O&M) 4 appropriate orders thereupon. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. If such an application is made, the learned Additional District Judge should try and dispose of the same expeditiously.” In pursuance to the same, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala which was dismissed on 23.08.2010, on the ground that no prejudice has been caused to him on account of the direction that he has to surrender his passport, as he had moved various applications to release the passport and each time permission was granted to travel abroad on furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-with on surety. Respondent No. 2 Ms. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur is present in Court in person. She was heard at length. She has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and expressed her fear that her husband, the petitioner, may not return back to India. Heard. It is not disputed that earlier permission to go abroad was granted to the petitioner on eight occasions. The petitioner had always returned back to India and has been regularly appearing before the trial court. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has never misused the concession of the bail granted to him. The argument that the petitioner has to visit regularly in different countries in pursuance to his job requirement, appears to be Criminal Misc. No.31806-M OF 2010(O&M) 5 correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner after having instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court states that he has no objection in depositing a bank guarantee of Rs. 8,00,000/- as surety for the purpose of permanent release of the passport. In the interest of justice and while guarding the interest of both the parties as well as taking into account the wastage of time, both of the Court and the petitioner, as well as unnecessary harassment caused while moving the Court for release of his passport on every occasion, the present petition is allowed and it is directed that passport be released to the petitioner subject to the following conditions. (a) the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 8,00,000/- which shall be kept alive during the pendency of the litigation and shall be renewed on regular intervals. (b) he shall appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial court except as and when he is granted exemption. (c) he will furnish undertaking that he shall not leave the country permanently and that he will have no objection for forfeiting of the bank guarantee in the favour of respondent No.2, in case of any adverse proceedings and initiated against him i.e. Proclaimed offender etc. (d) also any other condition as may deem fit by the trial court. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of Criminal Misc. No.31806-M OF 2010(O&M) 6 with a direction that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited in pursuance to order dated 1.11.2010 shall be duly released to respondent No. 2. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE 2nd February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik