Crl. Misc. No. M-17094 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17094 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.7.2009 Subash Chander .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is to quash the order dated 15.6.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to go abroad w.e.f. 15.7.2009 to 15.10.2009 has been dismissed observing that he is facing corruption charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is a senior citizen, along with his wife wants to go abroad to take care of his daughter, who is to deliver first child in the month of August, 2009. Trial of the case will not be delayed in his absence as examination-in-chief of two prosecution witnesses has been recorded and the petitioner will have no objection if the cross- examination of those witnesses is done in his absence by his counsel. The FIR in the present case was registered in the year 2003 and the trial is still pending.The petitioner is a pensioner and owns a house in Khanna. He never misused the concession of bail. The petitioner has also produced valuation report of his house, assessing the same at Rs. 17,86,000/- and statement of account of his son maintained with HDFC Bank at Khanna showing a balance of Rs. 1,28,747/- as on 31.5.2009. Crl. Misc. No. M-17094 of 2009 [2] I would like to mention that cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, as applies in this country, is that every person is innocent till proved guilty and further that the court presumes a human being to behave normally and this presumption continues till such time some concrete material, like antecedents of an individual, is brought on record to show that he shall not behave in normal fashion. If, therefore, a person might undertake to do a particular at, the court should presume that he shall do so unless there be reasons available from which it could be gathered that he shall not abide by the undertaking given by him. In the present case, learned Judge has not kept in mind either of the two principles, as have been mentioned above. I would like to add here that fundamental right or civil right cannot be curtailed only if a criminal case is pending against a person and surely, to go abroad to see his children or grand children is a right of an individual. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the court is of the firm view that ground for declining permission to go abroad, as mentioned by the court below, does not appear to be correct at all. Pendency of the case, as mentioned above, is no ground to decline permission to an individual to go abroad. The petitioner is permitted to go abroad from 15.7.2009 to 15.10.2009, subject to furnishing of surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and an undertaking before the trial Judge that he would be present to face trial after 15.10.2009. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.7.2009 mk