Crl. Misc. No.M-36385 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-36385 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.02.2011 Kashmir Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Crl. Misc. No.M-1127 of 2011 Balihar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) Both Crl. Misc. No.M-36385 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-1127 of 2011 shall stand disposed of by passing this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. Crl. Misc. No.M-36385 of 2010 2 M-36385 of 2010. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar and after setting aside the same to allow the application filed by the petitioner forgoing abroad. It is not disputed that the petitioner, herein, in the present petition and in the connected Crl. Misc. No.M-1127 of 2011 are the parents of Avtar Singh. They are Green Card Holder and as per conditions of the Green Card, it is necessary for every Green Card Holder to stay in the Country for two months in a year. The petitioner had moved an application to go to U.S.A for a period of two months before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar. However, the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2010, whereas, the application moved by the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-1127 of 2011 was dismissed on 13.12.2010. Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.11.2010, as well as, 13.12.2010 by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Petitions. The said application was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar only on the ground that there was an apprehension that the petitioner may not return back and moreover the son of the petitioner is already a proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Heard. It is not disputed that the petitioners are on bail. It is also not disputed that the petitioners were required to deposit ` 3 lacs as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail. ` 3 lacs since stand deposited before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is a Crl. Misc. No.M-36385 of 2010 3 Green Card Holder and in case, she does not visit U.S.A., the Green Card is liable to be cancelled. Further, it is not disputed that the petitioner was earlier granted permission to visit abroad vide order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar. In pursuance to the said permission, the petitioners duly went to USA during the period 12.01.2010 till 12.02.2010 and returned back to India in compliance of the terms of the order. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioners did not misuse the permission granted to them earlier by the trial Court. It is also a fact that the petitioners have not misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted to them. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are, accordingly, permitted to visit USA w.e.f. 20.02.2011. They shall return back to India and appear before the trial Court on 02.04.2011. The case which is fixed for 18.02.2011 now shall stands adjourn by the trial Court to 02.04.2011. The petitioners in both the petitions shall together furnish a bank guarantee amounting to Rs.10 lac which shall be kept alive during this period. In case, the petitioners do not return back by the next date of hearing, the daughter of the respondent-complainant shall be allowed to encash the said bank guarantee. However, in case, they return back and put in appearance on the next date of hearing, the bank guarantee shall be discharged back in favour of the present petitioners. They shall also furnish an undertaking to this effect before the trial Court. Allowed in the above said terms. A copy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 11.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet