IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.67664 of 2025 Date of decision : 03.12.2025 Kuldip Singh @ Kuldip Singh Bhandal .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for modification of order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide which permission has been granted to wife of the petitioner to go abroad, i.e. Canada for a period of 03 months whereas permission has been declined to petitioner to go abroad, i.e. Canada during the pendency of the complaint bearing COMI-37-2020, dated 21.10.2020, under Sections 323, 341 & 509 of IPC, registered at Police Sation Mukandpur, District SBS Nagar, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar and further prayed for seeking permission to go abroad, i.e. Canada for a period of 01 year.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and his wife have been falsely prosecuted in COMI-37- 2020, dated 21.10.2020, under Sections 323, 325, 341 & 509 of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, registered at Police Sation Mukandpur, District SBS Nagar. He has submitted that thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner and his wife under Sections 323, 341 and 509 of IPC and dismissed the complaint under Section 325 of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act vide order dated 06.01.2023. He has further submitted that as the petitioner and his wife were not aware about the pendency of the present complaint and as such, both were declared as proclaimed persons vide order dated 05.05.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and his wife approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-37950-2025 praying for quashing of order dated 05.05.2025 and this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 had disposed of the said petition subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/-. He has submitted that now the petitioner and his wife are regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. He has further submitted that son of the petitioner is minor and he is studying in Canada and thus, the petitioner and wife has filed an application for granting permission to go abroad during the pendency of the present complaint for a period of 01 year, however the learned trial Court has partly allowed the application by granting permission to the wife of petitioner, namely, Jasdeep Kaur only to go abroad from 15.11.2025 to 25.02.2026 vide order dated 15.11.2025 subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount. He has submitted that the application regarding the petitioner to go abroad was declined. He has submitted that the case is fixed for consideration and the presence of petitioner is not required for any proceedings. He has submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will come back to India to attend the Court as and when called and he is ready to abide and comply with the order of this Court and to furnish surety bonds or any other condition as ordered by this Court. He thus, prays that the order dated 15.11.2025 may kindly be modified and the petitioner be permitted to go abroad during the pendency of the complaint.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On asking of the Court, Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. She has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner and his wife are the accused in the present complaint. She has submitted that earlier the petitioner and his wife were declared as proclaimed persons and the said order was set aside by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025. She has submitted that the case is under investigation and thus, there are chances that the petitioner would not return to India. She has thus