CRM No. M 23676 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 23676 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.09.2010 Kamaljit Singh Karwal ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana rejecting the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to visit Germany from 14.09.2010 to 19.09.2010 and Las Vegas, Nevada, USA from 02.11.2010 to 04.11.2010 in case FIR No. 113 dated 19.06.2009 under Sections 186, 353, 332, 333, 307, 394, 148, 149, 120-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhina, District Ludhiana. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a businessman and is councillor of Ward No. 66, Shimlapuri CRM No. M 23676 of 2010 2 Ludhiana and is the Managing Director of M/s Bhagat Forge Limited, Sangowal Road, Village Bulara, Ludhiana dealing with motor vehicles spare part. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an exhibition of international trade at Germany from 14.09.2010 to 19.09.2010 and copy of the invitation letter received from M/s Messe Frankfurt inviting him along with receipt of ` 7.50 lacs deposited by the petitioner towards participation fees of Automechnika Frankfurt 2010 is attached with the petition. Another letter received from William T Glasgow, INC, AAPEX Show Managing qua exhibition of automotive after market produce Expo in USA from 02.11.2010 to 04.11.2010 along with full receipt is also attached. The petitioner intends to participate in the aforesaid exhibitions and for that purpose, he is to visit Germany for six days and USA for three days. It is also contended that the petitioner had moved an application before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on 19.07.2010 seeking permission to go abroad to attend the aforesaid exhibitions at Germany and USA respectively so as to enhance his business prospects. However, the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner has been declined vide the impugned order only on the ground that there is no guarantee that the petitioner would return back. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgement of this High Court rendered in the case of Naginder Singh Rana v. State of Punjab reported in 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 912, to contend that pendency of criminal case is no ground to decline the permission to an individual to go abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the CRM No. M 23676 of 2010 3 petitioner is ready and willing to furnish heavy bank guarantee. Learned State counsel has filed a reply by way of an affidavit of Narinder Pal Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rural (Gill), Ludhiana in Court today. The same is taken on record. No serious objection has been raised by the State. Accordingly and taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a resident of India and has been earlier travelling abroad and needs to go abroad in the context of his business, being the Managing Director of M/s Bhagat Forge Limited, the order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad i.e. Germany and USA with effect from 13.09.2010 to 15.11.2010 subject to the following conditions:- i) that the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of ` 20,00,000/- which shall be kept alive during the pendency of the case; ii) that the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that he would come back by 20.11.2010 iii) On his return, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court and submit his affidavit. The trial Court is also at liberty to impose any other relevant conditions as may deem proper in the present case. Disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of Reader attached to the Bench. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 10,2010 mohan