Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Pal Jain And Another vs State Of Punjab on 12 October, 2009
Criminal Misc. No. M-27542 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Misc. No. M-27542 of 2009
Date of Decision:12.10.2009
Joginder Pal Jain and another
.....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Joginder Pal Jain as well as his wife Swaran Lata Jain under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to go abroad during pendency of the trial before the learned trial Court.
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Joginder Pal Jain- petitioner is at present sitting M.L.A of Congress Party from Moga constituency. He had defeated Shri Tota Singh Ex. Cabinet Minister of Akali Party in the last Assembly Elections held in 2007 with comprehensive margin and due to this reason, he and his family members have been implicated in false cases to tarnish their image. Rosy Jain - daughter-in-law of the petitioners is in Vancouver and at present, she is in the family way. Criminal Misc. No. M-27542 of 2009 -2- As per the Doctor's report, the expected date of her delivery is 7.11.2009. It is necessary for the petitioners to remain by her side during this hour of need.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted with great eloquence that as would be apparent from Annexure P.6, the Obstetrical Ultrasound report, the expected date of delivery of Rosy Jain is 7.11.2009. He further puts that Joginder Pal Jain - petitioner being sitting M.L.A cannot afford to flee from justice. Their daughter-in-law being in urgent need of her care by them, they may be permitted to go abroad.
Learned State Counsel could not controvert these submissions in a successful manner.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In re: Ajay Vir Sehgal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2005(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 318, the petitioner was facing trial in a criminal case. He was allowed to go abroad in connection with his business and come back and present himself before Court on the next hearing.
Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Court below are hereby set aside/ quashed. The petitioners will be at liberty to fly abroad with condition that they shall return to India before 7th December, 2009 positively and each petitioner shall deposit Rs.5 lacs in cash/ draft with the concerned Court, which may also impose other conditions as it deems fit Criminal Misc. No. M-27542 of 2009 -3- and proper. However, on their return, they shall be entitled to seek refund of this amount provided they return by the said date failing which this amount shall be deemed to have been forfeited to the State.
Disposed of accordingly.
October 12, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE