IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 19.01.2026 Uploaded on: 20.01.2026 KIRAN BALA …Petitioner V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Argued by: Mr. Tejeswar S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kshitij Bharti, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

1. Order dated 04.10.2025 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, declining prayer of the petitioner to travel to Canada has been assailed by way of this petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts, relevant for decision of the case are that FIR No. 382 dated 11.11.2024 under Sections 115, 3(5), 316(2), 351(2) and 85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mahesh Nagar Ambala was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, her husband Harbans Kohli and son Nitin Kohli alleging therein that after her marriage was solemnized with Nitin Kohli on 05.03.2018 at Ambala Cantt., the petitioner-

mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law and husband tortured and harassed her for insufficient dowry, raised demands for dowry, treated her with cruelty and misappropriated the dowry articles. Petitioner and Harbans Lal Kohli are facing trial before the Court of learned JMIC, Ambala. Co-accused Nitin Kohli, husband has not yet been arrested. The case was at the stage of prosecution evidence when application was moved by the petitioner before learned trial Court seeking permission to travel to Canada to meet her daughter, who was pregnant and was expected to deliver a child in the month of January 2026. Learned trial Court heard respective submissions and dismissed the application on the ground that possibility could not be ruled out that petitioner may not return to India to face trial. Further, no particulars of her daughter’s address and other details were provided and report of doctor was also not placed on file.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charges in the case were framed on 24.04.2025 and the case was still at initial stage. Petitioner had clean antecedents and had been falsely implicated. Another petition filed for quashing of FIR was pending before this Court, in which notice had been issued. He further submits that petitioner’s daughter Sumegha Kohli, who was permanently residing in Ontario, Canada, was pregnant and her expected date of delivery was January 2026. As per medical advice, she required support of her family members. Learned trial Court, without appreciating the correct legal position and facts of the case, illegally dismissed the application. Referring to Utkarsh Pahwa Vs. Assistant Director PMLA Directorate of Enforcement, 2019(1) Law Herald 870, Srichand P. Hinduja Vs. State through CBI, New Delhi 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 186 (SC), Arun Kapoor Vs. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 594 (P&H), Brij Bhushan Singal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 498 (P&H), Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 201 and Naginder Singh Rana Vs. State of Punjab 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 912 and this Court’s judgment in CRM-M-8954-2020 titled Kulbir Kaur and Another Vs. Parminder Singh and Another, he submits that the right to travel abroad was fundamental right of the petitioner and could not be curtailed outrightly. He further submits that presence of the petitioner with her daughter was necessary and adequate conditions could have been imposed by learned trial Court to ensure her return. The impugned order of learned trial Court amounted to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner and deserved to be set aside.

4. Respondent No. 1-State has filed reply to the petition. Learned State counsel argues that there were no compelling circumstances requiring the petitioner to travel abroad. On the other hand, chances that she would not return to India were