1 CRM-M-38676-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 CRM-M-38676-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.07.2026 JASVIR KAUR ALIAS JASVEER KAUR PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner seeks quashing/modification of order dated 09.06.2026 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, passed in application bearing No.CRM-322-2026 arising out of case bearing No.CHI- 758-2025 titled ‘State Vs. Jasvir Kaur’. 2. Petitioner, who was facing trial in in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa in a case arising out of FIR No.19 dated 15.03.2024 under Sections 420/120-B IPC, Police Station Joga, District Mansa applied for permission to travel to Canada from 22.07.2026 to 08.08.2026, supported by confirmed non-refundable air tickets. The application was allowed on 09.06.2026, subject to the condition that she furnishes a bank guarantee or FDR of ₹7,00,000/- to the Court, thereby assuring that she would return to India in time, which she was required to intimate to the Court. Certain other conditions were also imposed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had deep roots in the society, clean antecedents and had been regularly attending Court proceedings. There was no chance of her evading the Trial and the condition imposed by learned Trial Court was onerous. It is stated that petitioner, despite best efforts, was not able to arrange the amount of HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.21 16:33 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-38676-2026 (O&M) ₹7,00,000/- by way of bank guarantee/FDR within the limited time available. Hence, the order be quashed or modified by diluting the condition requiring furnishing of bank guarantee/FDR of ₹7,00,000/- imposed by learned Trial Court. 4. The right of the petitioner to travel abroad, which is an essential facet of the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been recognized by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, while granting her permission to travel abroad from 22.07.2026 to 08.08.2026. The Court, however, was required to balance the requirement of the process of law, the interest of the prosecution with the right of petitioner to travel abroad. The condition to furnish bank guarantee/FDR of ₹7,00,000/- cannot be termed onerous or disproportionate, considering the purpose of the visit, which is for tourism purpose. Petitioner is facing trial under Sections 420/120- B IPC and in her application seeking permission, she undertook to comply with any condition imposed by the Court, including furnishing of surety bond, deposit of security etc. The condition imposed by the Court is only to secure the interest of the prosecution and ensure that petitioner returns to face trial. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order requiring intervention by this Court. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. 5. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 17.07.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.21 16:33 I agree to specified portions of this document