IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

221 Date of decision: 06.02.2026 HARMANDEEP SINGH …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Argued by: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

1. Order dated 19.01.2026 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, declining prayer of the petitioner to travel abroad has been assailed by way of this petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Petitioner and his son Bhavdeep Singh are accused in FIR No. 57 dated 14.04.2025 under Sections 316(2), 85, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Dhaka, District Ludhiana registered on complaint of his daughter-in-law Ramandeep Kaur. He moved an application before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana for permission to visit United State of America for a period of 04 months w.e.f. 01.02.2026 to 30.05.2026. Vide order dated 19.01.2026, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana declined his prayer on the ground that offences were serious in nature and there were chances of the petitioner fleeing from justice as the case was still under investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was an NRI and Green Card Hoder of United States of America. He was granted anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 30.07.2025 and had been regularly complying with all the terms and conditions imposed therein. He came to India in August 2025 and was living in the country ever since. As per rules of immigration and polices of the Government of USA, a green card holder was required to return within a reasonable time, failing which, his green card/permanent residency could be cancelled/revoked. Petitioner urgently needed to travel to the United States of America for a period of 04 months for fulfilling his obligations and to attend to his personal affairs. It is argued that impugned order of learned JMIC, Ludhiana was violative of petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India to travel abroad. Further, petitioner undertook to return to India before 31.05.2026 and to abide by any reasonable condition as may be imposed by the Court. In support of his submissions, he relied upon judgment of this Court in Gurpeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2024 NCPHHC 93415 and CRM-M-24287-2022 decided on

27.07.2022 titled Neha Bambah Vs. State of Punjab and Another.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Varinder Singh Khosa, PPS, DSP, Dakha, District Ludhiana (Rural). He supports the impugned order of learned JMIC, Ludhiana submitting that the case was still under investigation. Co-accused Bhavdeep Singh was residing in USA and could not be arrested yet, on which account challan could not be submitted. Petitioner wanted to flee to USA after obtaining permission of the Court and would never return to India to face trial. Prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

5. In a Five Judge Bench judgment titled Satwant Singh Sawhney versus D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and others, 1967 AIR Supreme Court 1836, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“13. The relevant article of the Constitution is Article 21, reads “Art. 21 No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

If the right to travel is a part of the personal liberty of person he cannot be deprived of his right except according... the procedure established by law. This court in Gopolan case(1) has held that law in that article means enacted law and it is conceded that the State has not made any law depriving or regulating the right of a person to travel abroad.”

xx xx xx “32. For the reasons mentioned above we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that t