NAGINDER SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to quash order dated 25.5.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and in consequence of setting aside the order aforesaid, to permit the petitioner to go to USA for a month.

(2.) PERMISSION to go abroad has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by observing that the petitioner is facing a corruption charge. It has been observed that even though the petitioner is on bail in the case aforesaid, but an application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the State, which is pending in the High Court. The Additional Sessions Judge further observed that if allowed to go abroad, the petitioner is not likely to return in India. It has, inter alia, been pleaded that from the perusal of the FIR, it would be clear that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and during the investigation, he has produced before the Investigating Officer as well as the Court all relevant documents and his assets, which are mentioned in the FIR and he has given the proof of the same. He is having agricultural land, from which he is having huge income and the said land was purchased with the permission of the department. He is having three daughters and one son. Two daughters are married abroad and the elder daughter, namely, Shellu Rana is residing in USA and recently she has been blessed with a son. Therefore, the petitioner as well as his wife want to go abroad to see her and newly born baby and regarding that sponsorship has been sent to the petitioner and his family members by his son-in-law (Annexure P-1). After the marriage of the girl, the petitioner along with his family went abroad to attend the reception in USA with the permission of the department. After visiting USA, the petitioner returned back and rejoined his duty and now when his daughter has been blessed with a son, it is the custom in the Rajput community to go and see the child and for that purpose, the whole family members want to go abroad and that can only be done during vacation of the two children, namely, Kajal Rana and Akashdeep Singh Rana. It is then pleaded that when the petitioner was admitted to bail, there was no condition stipulated in the order that he cannot go abroad.

(3.) THE respondent has filed reply wherein, insofar as factual position is concerned, the same has not been denied. It has, however, been pleaded that the petitioner has misused his authority and by adopting corrupt and illegal means has earned more than his sources. From the month of January, 1996 to December, 2000, his total income was Rs. 16,93,450/-, whereas during this period, he has spent Rs. 25,44,950/- and in this way, he has spent Rs. 8,51,500/- in excess and has committed offence. It is then pleaded that an application has been filed for cancellation of bail in this Court, which is pending for 22.7.2004. The petitioner is stated to be facing serious case and for that reason, it is averred that he should not be allowed to go abroad and the petition should be dismissed.