Crl. Misc. No.M-28569 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-28569 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.10.2010 Sandeep Garg .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, AA.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.08.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby petitioner has been declined the permission to go to China. The petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.59 dated 03.04.2004 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana, for the offences under Section 379, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. In the said case, charges were framed on 03.07.2010 by the learned trial Magistrate. Against the order framing charges, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Crl. Misc. No.M-28569 of 2010 ::2:: The petitioner is Executive Director of M/s Deepak Cosmo Limited; besides is associated with other Companies. The petitioner is to visit China in connection with his business time and again. The petitioner earlier applied for grant of permission to go abroad which was allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P-5). The co-accused of the petitioner was granted permission to go abroad vide order dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a law-abiding person and it is unlikely that he would abscond. Besides, on an earlier occasion, after his visit abroad he had returned. The petitioner has business dealings and commitments in China and, therefore, he has to visit China time and again. In response, learned counsel for the State has not been able to dispute the aforesaid factual position although it is submitted that permission to go abroad is liable to be declined. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It may be noticed that the petitioner is facing trial in FIR dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure P1) registered against him at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana. The case is triable by the learned Magistrate Ist Class. The charges in the case have been framed which is assailed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court and no proceedings at present are being conducted before the learned trial Magistrate. The petitioner is a person of substantial means. He is associated with different firms/companies and he is a Director of some of them. On an earlier occasion, the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P5) granted permission to the petitioner to go abroad. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Sanjay Garg was Crl. Misc. No.M-28569 of 2010 ::3:: granted permission to go abroad by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure P6). The petitioner after grant of permission to go abroad vide order dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P5) has returned. Even co-accused of the petitioner after grant of permission to go abroad by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure P6) has also returned. The apprehension expressed by the learned trial Magistrate that the petitioner may abscond can be ensured by imposing certain conditions. It is not disputed that the petitioner has business dealings and committments abroad. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the petitioner is allowed to go abroad by imposing certain conditions. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.08.2010 (Annexure P-9) is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to go abroad which, however, shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10 lacs to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate undertaking to appear in Court on his return from abroad on or before 31.01.2011. However, in case, the trial in the case proceeds during this interregnum he shall be permitted to appear through his counsel and the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that he shall have no objection if the evidence is recorded in his absence and that his counsel shall appear on each date of hearing till 31.01.2011. (ii) The petitioner shall bind himself that he shall return from abroad and appear before the trial Magistrate. (iii) The petitioner shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.10 lacs each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate, for his return from abroad and appearance before the Court. (iv) The sureties and bonds shall be accepted and after acceptance of the sureties, the petitioner shall be permitted to go Crl. Misc. No.M-28569 of 2010 ::4:: abroad till 31.01.2011. (v) On return, the petitioner shall continue to be bound by the old bonds and conditions imposed while releasing him on bail and the conditions imposed for his going abroad shall become inoperative. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 07, 2010 sukhpreet