CRM-M-23308-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CRM-M-23308-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.07.2026 Surinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Jagat Vir Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner was declined permission to travel abroad during the pendency of trial arising out of FIR No.64 dated 07.04.2023 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, under Sections 323, 324, 341, 452, 506, 34 and 201 IPC. The petitioner further prays that she be permitted to travel to Canada in order to meet her daughter and to finalize her proposed marriage. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the petitioner, Surinder Kaur, has been arrayed as an accused in the aforementioned FIR, which was lodged on the complaint of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23308-2025 (O&M) -2- respondent No.2 alleging that on 28.03.2023, after a Court official had served summons upon the parties in connection with pending civil litigation, accused Daljit Singh, Jagsir Singh and the present petitioner, along with another co-accused Jagjit Kaur, unlawfully entered the complainant's house while armed with weapons, assaulted the complainant and his wife, dragged the complainant outside the house and extended threats before fleeing from the spot. Specific allegations have been attributed to the present petitioner that she, while armed with a wooden stick, participated in the occurrence and also assaulted the complainant's wife when she intervened. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. 3. The petitioner had moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana seeking permission to travel to Canada for meeting her daughter and finalizing her marriage proposal. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2025 primarily on the ground that the petitioner's son, namely Jagsir Singh, another accused in the FIR, had absconded and was stated to be residing in Canada and, therefore, there existed an apprehension that the petitioner might also not return to face trial. Aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned trial Court has rejected the petitioner's request merely on conjectures arising MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23308-2025 (O&M) -3- from the conduct of her son, without there being any material to indicate that the petitioner herself intends to evade the process of law. It is argued that the petitioner is a 57-year-old lady and the sole surviving parent of her daughter, whose presence in Canada is necessary for finalizing the proposed marriage and completing customary family formalities. It is further argued that the investigation has already concluded, the challan stands presented before the trial Court and, therefore, no purpose would be served by preventing the petitioner from travelling abroad for a limited period. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has throughout cooperated with the investigating agency and has never misused the concession of bail. The petitioner owns two commercial properties situated at Ludhiana, both of which stand mortgaged with a bank and she continues to regularly repay the loan instalments. Thus, she has deep roots in the country and no intention to permanently settle abroad. The petitioner expresses her willingness to furnish any security, surety or undertaking or comply with any condition that may be imposed by this Court to ensure her return and participation in the trial proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner as she had actively participated in the occurrence, trespassed into the complainant's house and assaulted both the complainant as well as his wife in furtherance of the common intention shared with the co-accused. One of the co-accused, namely Jagsir Singh, who is the petitioner's son, has MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23308-2025 (O&M) -4- already absconded and is residing in Canada after evading arrest. In such circumstances, there exists a genuine apprehension that if the petitioner is permitted to leave the country, she may also not return to face the trial. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner deserves permission to travel abroad for a limited period during the pendency of the trial. The investigation in the present case has already concluded and the challan stands presented before the trial Court. The petitioner is admittedly facing trial and there is nothing on record to indicate that she has ever violated any condition of bail or remained absent before the Court whenever required. The trial is still at its initial stage and charges are yet to be framed. The reason assigned by the learned trial Court for declining permission is primarily that the petitioner's son, who is also an accused in the case, has allegedly fled to Canada. However, the conduct of another accused cannot be treated as determinative of the petitioner's own conduct or intention. Every accused has to be assessed on his or her individual facts. The apprehension that the petitioner may not return is only a possibility and cannot, in the absence of any material suggesting such intention, be made the sole basis to curtail her right to travel abroad. The petitioner seeks permission to visit Canada to meet her daughter and to finalize her proposed marriage. Such purpose cannot be said to be either illusory or inherently unreasonable. At the same time, the concern expressed by the State regarding securing the petitioner's presence during trial also deserves to be adequately safeguarded. Therefore, this MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23308-2025 (O&M) -5- Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice can be balanced by permitting the petitioner to travel abroad while simultaneously imposing stringent conditions ensuring her return and continued participation in the trial. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to travel abroad for a period of three months from the date of her departure from India, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall furnish to the trial Court her complete itinerary, residential address abroad, contact number and e-mail address before leaving India. ii. The petitioner shall deposit with the learned trial Court an FDR for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) prepared in the name of the trial Court before her departure. iii. In case the petitioner fails to return to India within the stipulated period of three months or fails to surrender before the trial Court without obtaining extension from the competent Court, the aforesaid FDR shall stand forfeited to the State, without prejudice to any other legal proceedings that may be initiated against her in accordance with law. iv. The petitioner shall return to India within three months from the date of her departure and shall appear before the learned trial Court on the first date fixed thereafter or on such date as may be directed by the trial Court. v. The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments after her return and shall regularly participate in the trial proceedings. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23308-2025 (O&M) -6- vi. She will be represented through her counsel before the learned trial Court during her absence in India; vii. She will not raise any objection to the examination of the official witnesses before the learned trial Court during her absence; viii. The petitioner shall not, during the period of her visit abroad, do anything which may prejudice the pending criminal proceedings. 9. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the petition stands allowed. 10. Pending applications, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. 27.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R. R. R. R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document