Ravinder Singh Dhillon vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner-Ravinder Singh Dhillon, a Senior Assistant working with the Cooperation Department, Punjab (presently under suspension) is facing trial in case FIR No. 10 dated 16.3.2009 under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By filing this petition u/s 482 CrPC he seeks quashing of the order dated 4.8.2010 (P2) passed by learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, declining his application to go abroad-Australia- where his son is presently staying on a student visa, which is valid upto December 2010. Consequential prayer is to permit the petitioner to visit Australia for a limited duration i.e. w.e.f. 16.8.2010 to 10.10.2010.

Notice of the petition was issued to respondent-State. Despite opportunity, State has chosen not to file any reply.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that since 2.4.2009 the petitioner is regularly attending the proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been granted visa to visit Australia from 23.7.2010 to 22.10.2010 and that he alongwith his wife wishes to visit Australia from 16.8.2010 to 10.10.2010 to meet their son-Lovjot Singh. It is then submitted that the petitioner owns two houses i.e. one ancestral house in his name and the other one in the name of his wife Smt. Balbir Kaur.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Special Judge has illegally declined the prayer of the petitioner on mere surmises and conjectures. It is also contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, in case he is granted permission to visit Australia for the aforesaid limited period.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, it is a fit case, where permission can be granted to petitioner to visit Australia to meet his son for the limited period.

The Courts have recognised the fundamental and civil right of every citizen to go aborad which cannot be curtailed during the pendency of a criminal case unless there be a specific order passed on that behalf. Reference in this regard may be made to Chaitali v. State of Punjab 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 521 and Srichand P. Hinduja v. State through CBI, New Delhi 2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 186 (SC).

It is not disputed that the petitioner is an employee of State Government, though under suspension. He and his wife own residential property in India. Their son is in Australia on Student Visa and has not yet acquired permanent resident ship. It is also not disputed that so far petitioner has been regularly attending Court proceedings and also undertakes that in case he is permitted to visit Australia for the limited period i.e. upto 10.10.2010, he will abide by conditions imposed by the Court.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the order dated 4.8.2010 (P2) passed by learned Special Judge, Ludhiana is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to visit Australia from now onwards till 10.10.2010, subject to conditions that the learned trial Court may deem just and reasonable. While doing so, the trial Court would be at liberty to direct the petitioner to furnish adequate sureties.