Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh @ Bikram vs State Of Punjab on 14 October, 2014
CRM-28642-2014 in -1-
CRA-S-1996-SB-2013
BIKRAMJIT SINGH @ BIKRAM V/S STATE OF PUNJAB
Present: Mr.R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.D.S. Brar, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
***
Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed seeking permission by the applicant-appellant Bikramjit Singh alias Bikram to go abroad.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
The applicant-appellant Bikramjit Singh alias Bikram is accused No.18 in the trial Court case. Accused Nishan Singh and others were tried for the commission of offences punishable under sections 452, 307, 363, 366-A, 376, 325, 323, 482, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 212, 216 read with Section 149 and Section 148 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' - for short) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The complainant Ashwani Sachdeva, resident of Dogar Basti, Faridkot indulged in the sale and purchase of cars. His younger daughter who is the prosecutrix aged about 15 years was a student of 10th class. When the prosecutrix had gone for tuition, she was forcibly taken by Nishan Singh accused No.1 along with his companion on 25.6.2012. Regarding the said incident, a case was registered. Later on daughter of the SUNIL YADAV 2014.10.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-28642-2014 in -2- CRA-S-1996-SB-2013 complainant Ashwani Sachdeva escaped from the control of Nishan Singh and she returned on 27.7.2012. In routine she started going to her school. Few days earlier to the lodging of the report, Navjot Kaur, mother of Nishan Singh (accused No.1) had come to the house of the complainant and asked the complainant side to enter in a compromise. The complainant expressed his disinclination for the same. Navjot Kaur then had warned them to face dire consequences.
Nishan Singh (accused No.1) along with his companions on 24.9.2012 at about 9:45 a.m. had come to the house of complainant. They were armed with pistol, kirches, kirpans and iron rods and they entered in the house of the complainant and tried to forcibly take the prosecutrix. When the complainant refrained Nishan Singh and others from doing so, they beat the complainant, his wife and his other daughter. They dragged the complainant and got him in the courtyard. The complainant was given a beating with rods and he suffered injuries on his left hand, left elbow and back of the neck. The assailants also inflicted injuries to the wife of the complainant. Nishan Singh and his companions forcibly took the prosecutrix. The complainant and his daughter raised an alarm. The complainant and his other daughter chased them to rescue his daughter. On this one of the companions of Nishan Singh had fired with a pistol. In view of the firing, the complainant retraced SUNIL YADAV 2014.10.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-28642-2014 in -3- CRA-S-1996-SB-2013 his steps. In the meanwhile, people had gathered in the street and Nishan Singh and his companions forcibly took the daughter of the complainant towards the narrow street leading to street No.8. They were chased by the complainant. The prosecutrix was put in a light brown colour Ford Ikon car which had tainted glasses. The assailants then fled away. The assailants had taken the prosecutrix in connivance with Navjot Kaur, mother of Nishan Singh. The incident had been pre-planned to pressurize the complainant to enter into a compromise in an earlier registered case. The complainant and his wife were got admitted in GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot by Satish Kumar.
The role attributed to applicant-appellant Bikram Singh alias Bikram (accused No.18) is that he got prepared fake driving licences in the names of Gurpreet Singh qua Nishan Singh and Jasmeet Kaur qua the prosecutrix. The said driving licences were used as genuine by accused Nishan Singh to hide his identity during the various rounds of his movement.
This Court vide order dated 7.11.2013 during the pendency of the appeal granted bail to the applicant-appellant inter alia observing that the learned State counsel could not point out any evidence showing the role of the applicant-appellant in the commission of offence. The case against him was regarding the facilitating of preparing fake driving licence of accused Nishan Singh and the prosecutrix to be used as genuine to conceal their SUNIL YADAV 2014.10.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-28642-2014 in -4- CRA-S-1996-SB-2013 identity.
Learned State counsel has filed affidavit of Shri Jasvarinder Singh SI/SHO, P.S. City Faridkot opposing the prayer of the applicant-appellant for going abroad. It is inter alia stated that there is no other FIR registered against applicant at PS. City Faridkot.
The prayer of the petitioner by way of the present Crl. Misc. application is that he is to go abroad for his employment since he was qualified for Merchant Navy.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srichand P. Hinduja v. State through CBI, 2002 (3) RCR 186 granted permission to the accused in the said case to go aboard. The three Hinduja brothers in the said case were facing criminal prosecution in the case known as Bofors case. They were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, besides, Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The accused had been granted bail. However, a condition was imposed that they should not go abroad. It had been pointed out to the Hon'ble High Court that if the accused were permitted to go abroad, it would affect the smooth progress of the trial and there were reasonable grounds to believe that they would not return back to India to face the SUNIL YADAV 2014.10.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-28642-2014 in -5- CRA-S-1996-SB-2013 trial. It was also pointed out that the appellants in the said case were Indian Nationals at the time of the registration of the FIR and thereafter, they had acquired British and Swiss Nationalities. The accused, however, contended that there was no question of not returning to this country. They were having large stakes and as such they were Indian Nationals prior to few years. On behalf of the CBI it was contended that in all 91 witnesses were to be examined. Out of them about 80 were Indian nationals and 11 were foreign nationals. It was also submitted that the investigating agency would co-operate fully in the day-to-day trial and co-operate in concluding the trial as had been directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the facts and circumstances for the time being as an interim measure permitted the appellants to go abroad on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the order.
This Court in Brij Bhushan Singal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 (3) RCR (Crl.) 498 (P&H) in a case where the Special Judge granted bail to accused in the said case but impounded his passport to prevent him from going abroad, held that it was competent to review the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ordered release of the passport. The accused in the said case was permitted to go abroad and return within four months subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 25 SUNIL YADAV 2014.10.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-28642-2014 in -6- CRA-S-1996-SB-2013 lacs.
The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Brijesh Singh v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (2) RCR (Crl.) 330 held that passport is the property of the person and permitted the delivery of custody of passport on furnishing security to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Manmohan Singh v. C.B.I., 2004 Crl.L.J. 2919 considered the contention that the petitioner therein had travelled abroad with permission of the Court on as many as eight occasions and on each occasion the Court had desired of him to furnish a bank guarantee/FDR for a substantial amount. It was held that where the petitioner had been allowed to travel abroad on various occasions and had not belied the trust of the Court bestowed upon him and neither caused any obstruction in the trial nor had he abused his liberty, in any manner, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to modify the condition of bail that requires him to surrender his passport to the Court and not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court by deleting the same.
The applicant-appellant Bikramjit Singh alias Bikram in the present case has been sentenced by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468, 366/149 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years besides to pay fine of Rs.4000/-. The applicant-appellant at present is on bail. His presence in this SUNIL YADAV 2014.10.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-28642-2014 in -7- CRA-S-1996-SB-2013 Court is not required for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Besides, the appeal also is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. The applicant-appellant is to pursue his career in the Merchant Navy in USA for which he has been selected. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the applicant-appellant would return back in July 2015 and he would report in this Court. It is submitted that although this may be a continuing process, however, the applicant-appellant would not abscond and be present as and when his presence is required.
Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the applicant-appellant Bikramjit Singh alias Bikram is permitted to go to abroad till 31 July, 2015 subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant-appellant shall execute a personal bond and a surety bond by his father Sh. Sarabjit Singh Wahniwal in sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court and both shall furnish their undertakings to appear in the Court on or before 31.7.2015,
2. the applicant-appellant shall bind himself to return from abroad and appear in this Court for the purpose of the appeal,
3. In case during the period the applicant-appellant is abroad and the appeal is listed for hearing, his personal appearance SUNIL YADAV 2014.10.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-28642-2014 in -8-
CRA-S-1996-SB-2013 shall be exempted and he shall be permitted to appear through his counsel.
4. On return, the applicant-appellant shall continue to be bound by the old bond and conditions imposed while releasing him on bail and the conditions imposed for his going abroad shall cease to be operative.
After furnishing the necessary surety bond, the applicant-appellant may go abroad.
( S.S. SARON )
JUDGE
(DARSHAN SINGH)
October 14, 2014 JUDGE
sunil yadav
SUNIL YADAV
2014.10.17 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh