Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh Brar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 February, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Crl.Misc. No.M-30114 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
...
Crl.Misc. No.M-30114 of 2011
Date of Decision: February 09, 2012
Sher Singh Brar
... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
-.-
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
In compliance of the order dated 03.01.2012 passed by this Court, learned State counsel submits that the charge could not be framed before the learned trial Court and now the case is fixed for 28.02.2012. However, he submits that the prosecution is not at fault in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to para 4 of the petition, submits that in case the petitioner is not allowed to go to abroad, his P.R. Card would expire and even the grace period of six months after November, 2011 would be of no use to him. This factual aspect of the matter has not been denied by the State counsel. Crl.Misc. No.M-30114 of 2011 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the order dated 19.05.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.No.13348 of 2011. This order dated 19.05.2011 passed by this Court reads as under:
"Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2011 (Annexure P-5), whereby his application for permission to go abroad to New Jersey (USA) from 08.05.2011 to 08.11.2011 has been declined. The petitioner wants to go for renewal of Taxi Medallion Driver License, while is to be expired on 30.06.2011 and to settle the bank accounts, tax returns, insurance etc. The prayer has been declined on the ground that he is not likely to come back. A reference has been made to an order dated 25.10.2010 passed by this Court in Crl.Misc.No.M-30762 of 2010, in which permission has been granted to Balwant Singh By executing surety or indemnity bond to the tune of Rs.25 lacs.
The criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and petitioner is permitted to go abroad for four months i.e. w.e.f. 8.6.2011 to 8.10.2011 subject to depositing two sureties of Rs.25,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of trial Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish the sureties and he will have no objection if the charges are framed against him in his absence and in the presence of his counsel. Similarly, the petitioner will have no objection in case the prosecution evidence is allowed to be recorded in his absence.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record of the case.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court Crl.Misc. No.M-30114 of 2011 3 is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be granted the permission to go abroad under the compelling circumstances being faced by him, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on certain conditions.
In view of the above, the Criminal Miscellaneous is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to go abroad for a period of four months, i.e. from 20.02.2012 to 20.06.2012, subject to his depositing two sureties in the sum of `25 lacs each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and also furnishing his undertaking that he will have no objection in case the charges are framed against him in his absence and also the prosecution evidence is allowed to be recorded in his absence.
In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.
February 09, 2012 ( RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK )
jt JUDGE
Crl.Misc. No.M-30114 of 2011 4