Karanbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Karanbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 February, 2024

Author: Anoop Chitkara

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

                                                               Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024981




CRM-M-6520-2024

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                              AT CHANDIGARH

                                                        CRM-M-6520-2024
                                                        Reserved on: 14.02.2024
                                                        Pronounced on: 22.02.2024

Karanbir Singh                                          ...Pe  oner

                                Versus

State of Punjab                                         ...Respondent


CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:         Mr. Jasdeep SIngh, Advocate and
                 Ms. Taranjot Kaur, Advocate for the pe  oner.

                 Mr. Harish Mehla, AAG, Punjab.

                                         ****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
 FIR No.        Dated          Police Sta/on           Sec/ons
 04             26.02.2020     Vigilance Bureau,       409, 204, 120-B IPC (Sec on 420
                               PS-1, District SAS      IPC and 13 of PC Act added later
                               Nagar                   on)

1. Seeking quashing of order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by

Addi onal Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby applica on filed by pe oner for

permission for travel abroad has been declined, the pe oner has come up before this

Court.

2. I have heard counsel for the par es and gone through the record and its analysis

would lead to the following outcome.

3. It would be appropriate to refer paragraphs 2 and 3 of the pe on, which reads

as follows:

2. That the pe oner is permanent resident of Canada since 31.07.2018 and is
residing at Canada since 31.07.2018. The pe oner is also having the PR card
since 31.07.2018 which is going to expire on 15.02.2024. That the pe oner is
also having valid Canadian Driving License which is going to expire on
23.08.2028. Copy of the PR Card and Driving License is a&ached here as
Annexure P-2 & P-3.

1

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 05:14:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024981

CRM-M-6520-2024

3. That the pe oner is married with one Robinpreet Kaur who is also
permanent resident of Canada since 5th June 2021 and out of their wedlock one
minor daughter namely Ruhaniyat Kaur was born on 18.12.2021 at Canada and
thus is a ci zen of Canada. Copy of the PR Card of Robinpreet Kaur is annexed
as Annexure P-4 and copy of birth cer ficate and passport of Ruhaniyat Kaur is
annexed here as Annexure P-5 and P-6.

4. State has opposed the present pe on and it would be appropriate to refer

paragraphs No. 2 to 4 of the reply dated 13.02.2024, which reads as follows:

“2. That for enquiring the irregulari es in the recruitment process, a Vigilance
Enquiry no: 22 of 2017 has been registered in the Vigilance Bureau. During this
Vigilance Enquiry, it has been found that total 154 cra9 instructors were
recruited and from these recruited instructors, the recruitment of almost 45
cra9 instructors found suspicious due to their fake experience cer ficates and
fake verifica on.

3. That pe oner/ accused Karanbir Singh, managed to get appointment for
the post of Art & Cra9 Instructor on the basis of fake and false documents in
connivance with Paramveer Singh, dealing Assistant at the office Directorate of
Technical Educa on & Industrial Training, Punjab. It is per nent to men on
here that the pe oner accused had neither applied for the said post nor his
name was men oned in the merit list.

4. That, a9er receiving the Directorate of Technical Educa on & Industrial
Training, Punjab le&er dated 13/12/2019, an F.I.R no: 4 dated 26/02/2020 was
registered. It is informed that le&er no: 174 dated 26.02.2020 of Ass&.
Inspector General of Police, VB/EOW, Punjab, SAS Nagar in context to V.E no:
22 of 2017 and another le&er of Head Quarter bearing no: 9938/VB/S-5, dated
26.02.2020 regarding registering F.I.R against Officers/Officials of Directorate
of Technical Educa on and Industrial Training, Punjab was received in this
office. The inves ga on of the case was conducted by the then Inves ga ng
Officer (I.O) of the case Sh. Iqbal Singh D.S.P (now Retd.). During the course of
inves ga on, three persons, that is, Paramveer Singh Junior Ass&, present
pe oner Karanbir Singh and one another instructor Ekta was nominated by
the then I.O of the case Sh. Iqbal Singh D.S.P (now Retd.).”

5. Pe oner had applied to visit Canada ll 01.04.2024, however vide order dated

30.01.2024, Addi onal Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab), declined such

2
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 05:14:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024981

CRM-M-6520-2024

prayer. Reason for declining was that the pe oner has a family in Canada, there is no

likelihood of his return.

6. As prayed in para 11 of the pe on, the pe oner shall return within 30 days

from the date of his departure from India and not later than 31.03.2024. Counsel for the

pe oner submits that they have no objec on if State proceed to cancel his passport in

case of his default to return back.

7. It remains undisputed that the pe oner’s wife is resident of Canada and he has

a daughter there, who is a ci zen of Canada. The allega ons against the pe oner are

also not grave because of which he would not return back to India. If the pe oner’s

permission to travel abroad is rejected simply because he has a family there, then on

that ground, no Court can give permission to any person, who has a family Abroad or

who is a resident outside India. The ques on for considera on is not that the person has

a family abroad or he has a permanent residency or a ci zenship but it is that whether

he is a flight risk or not. The reply did not point out towards any suppor ve documents

or inves ga on which can point out that the pe oner is a flight risk and would never

return back if he is permiAed to go abroad, it is merely an apprehension of State. Such

apprehension would have got more force, if the allega ons against the pe oner are

serious but in this case, allega ons are not so much serious. In addi on to this, the

pe oner’s counsel on instruc ons states that in case the pe oner does not return

within the me, then the State may cancel his passport and once passport is cancelled

then the permanent residency which is based on the passport would also automa cally

get cancelled. Further they have no objec on, if such a request is made to government

of Canada also. Further, the pe oner’s stand is that he is travelling to Canada only for

renewal of his PR card.

8. In the en rety of facts and circumstances of the case, pe on is allowed. The

inves gator/trial Court are directed to return the passport of the pe oner if the same

is in possession by keeping photocopy of the same from page to page without any delay,

3
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 05:14:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024981

CRM-M-6520-2024

to enable him to apply for requisite process. Pe oner is permiAed to travel abroad,

subject to the following condi ons:-

(i) The pe oner shall share the addresses where he would stay in
Canada and e-mail ID. Further, the pe oner will ac vate interna onal
roaming pack (valid ll the date of his return) on phone number on which
he would use whatsapp.

(ii) The pe oner shall share the mobile number, whatsapp number
and keep the GPS loca on ON of his phone and shall also share IMEI
number of the phone. The pe oner shall share all this informa on with
the State counsel before this Court. On receipt of such informa on
learned counsel for the State shall pass on the same to the quarter
concerned.

(iii) The pe oner shall return from Canada within 30 days from the
date of departure.

(iv) Pe oner is directed to surrender back his passport within 15
days from the date of return, if it is taken from the inves gator/trial
Court.

(v) Pe oner counsel shall appear before trial Court in case hearing is
fixed in the mean me and shall not seek any adjournment.

9. It is clarified that in case the pe oner violates any of the condi ons, then it

may be construed against him while gran ng similar permissions in future and it shall be

permissible for the State to file applica on for cancella on of pe oner’s passport.





                                                        (ANOOP CHITKARA)
                                                           JUDGE
22.02.2024
Jyo/-II

Whether speaking/reasoned:             Yes
Whether reportable:                    No.




                                                               Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024981
                                                  4
                                         4 of 4
                     ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 05:14:03 :::
 

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *