IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.09.2025 SATWINDER PAL SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

CRM-32931-2025 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Amended petition is taken on record.

CRM-M-32180-2025

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken on Board today itself.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 28.05.2025, Annexure P-1, passed by learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application seeking permission to go abroad (Canada) has been declined.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has previously been 7 times granted permission to go abroad as mentioned in paras 5 and

6 of the amended petition, out of which on 11.09.2023, was by this Court, for six months and he always returned within the stipulated time. The father of the applicant had passed away in India on 11.05.2025, though a ‘bhog’ ceremony was held in the village, however, since all his relatives are residing in Canada, while he is the only one back here, seeks permission to travel abroad for four months to perform the ceremonies there and share the grief.

4. In compliance to the directions passed by this Court on 10.09.2025, an affidavit has been submitted with regard to the properties owned by him, which read thus:

i. Land admeasuring 9.1 Marla situated at Khawaspur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, under M.C. limit, in the ownership of the petitioner vide vasika No. 6886 dated 15.02.2016 having market value of Rs. 40 Lakhs.

ii. Land admeasuring 21.5 Marla situated at Khawaspur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, under M.C. limit, in the ownership of the petitioner vide vasika No. 554 dated 19.04.2012 having market value of Rs. 78 Lakhs.

iii. Agricultural land admeasuring 05 Kanals and 10 Marlas situated at Khawaspur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, in the ownership of the petitioner vide vasika No. 9207 dated 08.03.2013 having market value of Rs. 39 Lakhs.

iv. Agricultural land admeasuring 02 Kanals and 18 Marlas situated at Khawaspur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, in the ownership of the petitioner vide vasika No. 1451 dated 02.06.2008 having market value of Rs. 25 Lakhs.

v. Agricultural land admeasuring 2 Marlas situated at Khawaspur, Tehsil and District Hoshiapur, in the ownership of the petitioner vide vasika No. 766 dated

26.04.2016 having market value of Rs. 15 Lakhs.

5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Ravinder Kaur, Inspector Vigilance Bureau, states that the above has been got verified from the office of the concerned Tehsildar, and as per jamabandi for the year 2022-23, the petitioner is owner of 15 kanals 18 marla 5 sarsari comprised in khewat No.468, 1317, 1631, 927, 1338, 1339 and 1608. He prays that stringent conditions be imposed upon him in case he is to be granted the permission as sought.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2020) 10 SCC 77, wherein the relief to travel abroad was granted and in Srichand P. Hinduja vs. State through CBI, New Delhi, 2002 (3) RCR (Crl.), 186, wherein a condition to execute a bond was imposed while granting such permission. Further, in the case of Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and others 2019(2) SCT 741, it was held that “The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self- determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that th