SURINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein petitioner has sought permission to go abroad (USA) during the pendency of trial before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon.

(2.) It appears that an FIR was registered against the petitioner and co-accused under Sections 506, 341, 323, 148, 149, 120-B IPC at Police Station Jagraon on 16th November, 2003. The allegation in the FIR was that petitioner alongwith co-accused demolished a wall constructed by the complainant when civil litigation regarding the property was pending between the parties. The petitioner had surrendered before the trial court on 21st November, 2003 and was enlarged on regular bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has wrongly dismissed her application to go abroad. He submits that charge in the case was framed on 18th April, 2004 and thereafter the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial court. According to him, there is, thus, no apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice. He has relied upon judgment of this court reported as Chaitali v. State of Punjab, 2004 3 RCR(Cri) 521 in support of his contention that petitioner has a right to travel abroad during the pendency of trial.