CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 136 Sukhpreet Singh State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the lear extent that the petitioner (herein) has been permitted to go abroad subject to his furnishing FDR of Rs.15.00 lacs in a Nationalized Bank before the trial Court. 2. imposed by the furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank, is excessively onerous and disproportionate to the financial means o stringent condition defeats the very purpose of granting liberty to the petitioner to travel abroad. and is willing to abide by any reasonable conditio this Court. In view of these submissions, the grant of instant petition is entreated for. 3. petitioner -41166-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhpreet Singh V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, limited challenge has been laid to the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the lear extent that the petitioner (herein) has been permitted to go abroad subject to his furnishing FDR of Rs.15.00 lacs in a Nationalized Bank before the trial Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the cond imposed by the Court below, while granting permission to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank, is excessively onerous and disproportionate to the financial means of the petitioner. It is further iterated that such a stringent condition defeats the very purpose of granting liberty to the petitioner to travel abroad. Furthermore, the petitioner is not at flight risk and is willing to abide by any reasonable conditio this Court. In view of these submissions, the grant of instant petition is entreated for. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer of the , on the basis of advance notice, 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41166-2025 Date of decision: 04.08.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ***** By way of present petition, limited challenge has been laid to the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, Jagadhari to the extent that the petitioner (herein) has been permitted to go abroad subject to his furnishing FDR of Rs.15.00 lacs in a Nationalized Bank before the trial Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the condition while granting permission to travel abroad, furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank, is excessively onerous and disproportionate f the petitioner. It is further iterated that such a stringent condition defeats the very purpose of granting liberty to the Furthermore, the petitioner is not at flight risk and is willing to abide by any reasonable condition that may be imposed by this Court. In view of these submissions, the grant of instant petition is , while opposing the prayer of the , on the basis of advance notice, has submitted that the condition .2025 Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. By way of present petition, limited challenge has been laid to ned ACJM, Jagadhari to the extent that the petitioner (herein) has been permitted to go abroad subject to his furnishing FDR of Rs.15.00 lacs in a Nationalized Bank before the trial ition the furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank, is excessively onerous and disproportionate f the petitioner. It is further iterated that such a stringent condition defeats the very purpose of granting liberty to the Furthermore, the petitioner is not at flight risk n that may be imposed by this Court. In view of these submissions, the grant of instant petition is , while opposing the prayer of the has submitted that the condition AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.05 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- imposed by the trial Court requiring the petitioner to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank is neither arbitrary nor excessive but rather a reasonable safeguard in the facts and circumstances of t prayed for. 4. perused the paper 5. nature of the allegations raised ag the economic background of the petitioner and with a view to give a balance to the cause of the prosecution vi abroad, this Court deems it appropriate to following terms (i) lacs in the form of FDR in a Nationalized Bank before the modified and sum of R said Court. (ii) August 04 Ajay -41166-2025 imposed by the trial Court requiring the petitioner to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank is neither arbitrary nor excessive but rather a reasonable safeguard in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is for. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the paper-book. Upon perusal of the record; especially keeping in view the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner in the FIR in question, economic background of the petitioner and with a view to give a balance the cause of the prosecution vis.-a-vi abroad, this Court deems it appropriate to following terms: The necessity of furnishing the lacs in the form of FDR in a Nationalized Bank before the modified and the petitioner shall now be required to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.5.00 lacs in the form of FDR said Court. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. August 04, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2 imposed by the trial Court requiring the petitioner to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank is neither arbitrary nor excessive but rather a reasonable safeguard in the he case. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have Upon perusal of the record; especially keeping in view the ainst the petitioner in the FIR in question, economic background of the petitioner and with a view to give a balance vis. right of the accused to travel abroad, this Court deems it appropriate to disposed off the petition in of furnishing the surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of FDR in a Nationalized Bank before the trial Court is be required to furnish surety in the in the form of FDR in a Nationalized Bank before the Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No imposed by the trial Court requiring the petitioner to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in the form of fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank is neither arbitrary nor excessive but rather a reasonable safeguard in the he case. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have Upon perusal of the record; especially keeping in view the ainst the petitioner in the FIR in question, economic background of the petitioner and with a view to give a balance . right of the accused to travel petition in the surety in the sum of Rs.15.00 trial Court is be required to furnish surety in the in a Nationalized Bank before the AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.05 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document