LAWS(P&H)-2005-10-65

SANT BABA DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On October 04, 2005
Sant Baba Darshan Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Sant Baba Darshan Singh, who is facing trial in case RC 10 (S)/2002-SIU.V/SCR II/CBI/SPE/New Delhi, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to visit abroad for religious purpose.

(2.) IN this case, on 8.5.1999, a dispute regarding some land took place in village Muksudra, in which the petitioner is alleged to have fired a shot hitting Devinder Singh on his left leg. In this occurrence, persons from both the sides, including some followers of the petitioner, received injuries. For the said occurrence, FIR No. 61 dated 8.5.1999 was registered at Police Station Payal under Sections 307, 506, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25, 27 of the Arms Act. In the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, vide order dated 5.5.2000, he was released on regular bail by this court. While granting him bail, the petitioner was directed not to leave the country without prior permission of this Court. Since passport of the petitioner was burnt in fire, therefore, it was also directed that he should not get a duplicate passport from the Regional Passport Office without the permission of this Court. Subsequently, on a petition (Crl. Misc. No. 36088-M of 2001) filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 17.1.2002 passed by this court, investigation of the aforesaid case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, as it was alleged by the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the case. After the investigation ultimately, the CBI filed challan in the aforesaid case against the accused including the petitioner. Now, the case is fixed for 11.11.2005 for prosecution evidence.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondent-CBI has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that in case, the petitioner is granted permission to visit abroad, there is apprehension that he will not return back to India to face trial. He further submits that merely for religious purpose, the petitioner cannot be permitted to visit abroad, particularly when he is facing trial.