Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldip Singh @ K.S.Makhan (Nri) vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-32000 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-32000 of 2013
Date of Decision: 24.9.2013.
Kuldip Singh @ K.S.Makhan (NRI) ........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking permission to go to Canada for two months in FIR No. 262 dated 1.8.2006, under Section 8, 21, 25, 29, of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
Heard.
The Trial Court vide order dated 6.9.2013 (Annexure P-6), while dismissing the application, has observed as under:-
"Submissions and contentions from both the sides have been considered and examined on the matter. Earlier also as revealed by the perusal of the file, the applicant/accused moved two similarly applications seeking permission of the court to go abroad which were declined. In one such application, it was observed by predecessor court that PO proceedings were initiated Singh Gurpreet against him as he was evading process of the court, 2013.09.25 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-32000 of 2013 -2- though he had put in his appearance before he was declared proclaimed offender. It was even further observed that the recovery involved in the case was of commercial quantity of heroin i.e. 4 kg and there were allegations of applicant/accused being involved in 'Hawala' transactions. Although, this is a fresh application made by the applicant putting forth fresh reasons, yet the grounds on which his previous applications were rejected remain as they were as well as apprehension regarding possibility that if such concession is given, he might misuse the same and not return to India to avoid the trial. There is no such change found to be there in the circumstances now nullifying those grounds on the basis of which his request was declined previously."
The reasons given by the Trial Court, while declining the request of the petitioner to allow him to go to Canada for two months, are sound reasons.
No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the trial expeditiously.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 24, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.09.25 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh