Criminal Misc. No. M-25887 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 25.9.2009 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-25887 of 2009 (O&M) Sadrick Sohan Lal ...Petitioner vs State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-26006 of 2009 (O&M) Sadrick Sohan Lal ...Petitioner vs State of Punjab ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present Mr. GS Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned two petitions as the same arise out of similar facts. Challenge has been made to the orders passed by the learned court below of even date whereby the applications filed by the petitioner to apply for passport and permission to go to Belgium and United Kingdom have been dismissed. Facts have been extracted from Criminal Misc. No. M-25887 of 2009 - Sadrick Sohan Lal vs State of Punjab. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of order dated 2.9.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned court below vide which the prayer of the petitioner for permission to apply for passport and visit abroad was declined. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 314 dated 13.10.2001, under Sections 451, 382, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. Trial of the case is pending and the application filed before the court below was rejected vide order dated 2.9.2009. The prayer of the petitioner is to permit him to apply for passport and to visit Belgium and United Kingdom from 9.10.2009 to 25.10.2009 to attend the reception party organised by his daugter Seema Sadrick and son-in-law Dr. Bert Emil Oelbrandt which is fixed for 18.10.2009. The prayer was declined by the court below by observing that it will hamper the proceedings of the case. Criminal Misc. No. M-25887 of 2009 (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of this court in Naginder Singh Rana vs State of Punjab 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 912 contended that the opinion arrived at by the court below is not justified. He submitted that till the petitioner is proved to be guilty his personal liberty cannot be curtailed which also includes his right to visit a foreign country. He further stated that the petitioner can be asked to furnish heavy surety with the undertaking that he will return in time and thereafter will attend the court proceedings. He further submitted that the FIRs in question were registered 7-8 years back and trial has not yet concluded and on account of that the petitioner has been put under undue restrictions. To deprive the petitioner to attend the reception party oragnised by his daughter is undue harassment. It was prayed that the petitioner be permitted to get his passport issued and also to visit foreign countries as mentioned above. Still further learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to submit the sale-deed of his house located at Amritsar with the trial court with an undertaking that in case he does not return back, his house in question may be attached and sold and the sale proceeds be forfeited to the State. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submitted that the petitioner should not be permitted to go abroad during the pendency of the criminal proceedings as there are chances of his absconding and in case he does not come back, the trial of the case will be unnecessary delayed and the guilty will not be punished for the offences committed by him. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. It is apparent that matter is fully covered by ratio of judgment of this court in Naginder Singh Rana's case (supra). In that case, petitioner Naginder Singh Rana had moved an application for release of his passport with a prayer that he intends to go to some foreign country. That prayer was declined on the same ground as has been mentioned in the order under challenge. This court after noticing following facts, formed opinion:- “5. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of this court. Before I may comment upon the respective pleadings of the parties and the arguments, that have been addressed before me, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-25887 of 2009 (3) 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 act, 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. 6. Insofar as pendency of corruption case against the petitioner is concerned, he is admittedly on bail and even though application for cancellation of the same has been moved, the State has not been able to secure even any interim adverse order against the petitioner. It is not the case of the State that while moving such an application for cancellation of bail, it has expressed even a suspicion that the petitioner would run away from law. No such pleading has been made in the reply filed on behalf of the State. 7. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case the court is of the firm view that grounds for declining permission to go abroad, as mentioned by the learned Special Judge, 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. Of course, steps have necessarily to be taken that a citizen abides by the undertaking of returning to the country given by him. It is this course, which is to be adopted in this case instead of declining permission to go abroad. Criminal Misc. No. M-25887 of 2009 (4) Impugned order Annexure P-6, dated 25.5.2004 is, thus, set aside. The petitioner is permitted to go abroad for a month, as asked for by him, but on the condition that he will give an undertaking before the trial Judge that he would be present to face trial after a month from the date he goes abroad, as and when the same is fixed and in that connection, learned trial Judge would ensure that sufficient and proper security is taken from the petitioner so that he is unable to avoid the court proceedings. On the undertaking, as mentioned above, and on furnishing the security, as may be ordered, to the satisfaction of the trial Judge, the petitioner shall be allowed to go abroad for a month.” The record of the case shows that the petitioner is facing trial in the FIRs which were registered way back in 2001 and 2002. Both the cases are still at the stage of prosecution evidence and because of delay in conclusion of trial, the petitioner is not able to attend the reception party orgainised by his daughter. The petitioner has already been enlarged on bail. It is not the case of the State that he ever tried to misuse the same. Under these circumstances, order passed by the court below dated 2.9.2009 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to apply for passport and visit abroad from 9.10.2009 to 25.10.2009. However, the same shall be subject to the petitioner's filing undertaking before the trial court that he would present himself to face trial after the expiry of period granted to visit abroad. As stated by the petitioner, he will submit the sale-deed of his residential house situated at Amritsar with the trial court with an undertaking that in case he does not comply with the undertaking given by him, the house in question may be attached and sold and the sale proceeds be forfeited to the State. In addition to this, the petitioner will furnish a surety of Rs. 5 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is, however, made clear that the aforesaid permission shall be considered only in the two cases, as have been referred to above. In case there is any other case, the petitioner will have to seek permission of the court in that as well. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. 25.9.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge