AMIT SURESHMAL LODHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dtd. 16/12/2020 (Annexure P-2) and order dtd. 8/1/2021 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari and Sessions Judge, Rewari, respectively, whereby an application for grant of permission to visit United States of America (for short "USA") and to release the passport of the petitioner has been dismissed and the criminal revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed. Further, a prayer has been made in the petition to allow the petitioner to visit USA for a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the passport and also for issuance of directions to the police officials to release the passport of the petitioner confiscated in FIR No.63 dtd. 17/2/2020 registered under Ss. 420, 406, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as "the IPC") at Police Station Dharuhera, Rewari.

(2.) The brief facts which have given rise to the filing of the present criminal miscellaneous petition are that the petitioner had made an application praying for grant of permission to visit USA for family reunion w.e.f. 18/12/2020 to 10/1/2021. It was the case of the applicant/petitioner that he had been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions Judge, Rewari and that the applicant/petitioner had already joined the investigation and that the applicant/petitioner is an Overseas Indian citizen having an Indian Passport No.N2419844 and is married to Mrs. Kimberly Marie, who is a citizen of USA having passport No.514439506 and out of the wedlock, the petitioner has a son named Ayan, who is also a US citizen by birth having passport No.506273592. It was averred that the wife and son of the petitioner are residing in Utah, a state in USA, at the address 584E, Southfork Drive, Draper, UT-84020 and that the petitioner is residing in India at Omkar Building Off. Annie Besant Rd. Worli Mumbai and that the petitioner wanted to visit his wife and son for conjugal union and in order to comply with the directions imposed under Sec. 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as "the Cr.P.C"), the petitioner was taking the prior permission of the Court and had, thus, filed the said application. It was further averred that the parents of the petitioner were permanently residing in India and even the company owned by the petitioner and the other assets were also in India. It was stated that the petitioner undertook not to violate the conditions of bail and further, to return the passport to the Investigator on his arrival back to India. With the said averments, the application was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. Additional Public Prosecutor had opposed the said application on the ground that the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation and also that the present case was a case under Ss. 420, 406, 120-B, 34 of the IPC, and the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (for short 'NCLT') was passed against the petitioner and also that he was not the authorized signatory of the company and the signatures were withdrawn on 24/9/2021 but the petitioner had placed two purchase orders on 17/10/2019 and had also signed two PDC cheques in order to cheat the complainant who had supplied the waste and scrap material. Application was also opposed on the ground that the petition bearing case No.CRM-M-33202-2020 titled as Joginder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, had been filed against the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Court and the said case was pending before this Court. Additional Public Prosecutor had also pointed out that there were chances of the petitioner fleeing from the course of justice as he was an Overseas Indian Citizen and his wife as well as his son were US citizens and in case, conjugal union was the ultimate/main objective sought, then the wife and son of the petitioner could also visit India instead of the petitioner going to USA for the family union.

(3.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, after considering the said averments and also after hearing the parties, dismissed the application vide order dtd. 16/12/2020 primarily on the following grounds: -