High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Himalyani Gupta vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 20 June 2017 · Citation: (2017) 06 P&H CK 0022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harinder Singh Sidhu
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-120B>Section 120B</a>, <a href=1767-147>Section 147</a>, <a href=1767-447>Section 447</a>, <a href=1767-149>Section 149</a>, <a href=1767-395>Section 395</a>, <a href=1767-448>Section 448</a>, <a
CASE NUMBER
21382 of 2017(O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

43 paragraphs · 493 words

Crl. Misc. No. 19617 of 2017

1.

The application is allowed and documents Annexures P-7 and P-8

are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

CRM stands disposed of.

Crl. Misc. M - 21382 of 2017

3.

The petitioner is seeking direction for release of her passport and

granting her permission to go United Kingdom to enable her to attend the

wedding reception of her son, which is to be celebrated on 1st and 2nd July, 2017.

4.

The petitioner is a practising lawyer at Delhi and is facing trial in

case FIR No. 85, dated 21.03.2016, under Sections 147, 149, 456, 457, 447, 448,

395, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt., District Ambala.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the marriage of son of

the petitioner, namely, Gaurav Gupta, was solemnised with Sayana Maria

Gonzalez on 05.10.2016 in Delhi. The wedding reception of her son

and daughter-in-law has been fixed for 1st and 2nd July, 2017 in London. The

petitioner being the only living parent of the bride-groom and her presence is

very much mandatory for the occasion. The said celebration would be attended

by all the family members of the bride and the bride-groom.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if the petitioner is

permitted to go abroad, she would abide by all the conditions that would be

imposed upon her by the Court.

7.

Learned State counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioner

is guilty of having misappropriated the trust property and there is every

apprehension that the petitioner would not return to face the trial.

8.

Be that as it may, the petitioner at present is only facing trial. She

has not been convicted by any Court of law. The right to go abroad is a

fundamental right. The apprehension of respondent-State that the petitioner may

not return to face trial can be taken care of by directing her to furnish heavy

security.

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in order to allay any

apprehension of the petitioner evading any process of law in addition to any

other surety as may be directed by the trial Court, the petitioner would also

deposit original title deed of property of her son namely, Gaurav Gupta, i.e B-

444, Basement and Ground Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

10.

Accordingly this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed

to release the passport of the petitioner to enable her to visit United Kingdom,

for a period of two weeks'' on her furnishing bonds/surety to the satisfaction of

the trial Court. Additionally the petitioner would also deposit with the trial Court

the original title deed of property of her son as mentioned above. The petitioner

will return and surrender her passport before the trial Court on or before

05.07.2017.

11.

A copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the petitioner

under the signatures of Special Secretary of this Court.