CRM-M-43264-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CRM-M-43264-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.09.2026 Tirath Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for quashing the order dated 22.07.2026, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time to return to India was dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of reasonable time to get his passport reissued/renewed and to return to India. 2. As discernible from the record, the petitioner is an accused in case bearing FIR No.105 dated 12.04.2025, registered under Sections 333, 115(2), 118, 351(2), 191(3), 190 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. The petitioner is residing and working in the United Kingdom and is stated to be holding a MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.03 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43264-2026 (O&M) -2- valid residence permit there. Vide order dated 12.02.2026, the learned trial Court permitted him to visit the United Kingdom from 01.03.2026 to 30.06.2026, subject to certain conditions and furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs.15 lakhs. As per the petitioner, he had booked his return ticket from Birmingham to New Delhi for 27.06.2026. However, according to him, he was not permitted to board the flight as his passport did not have the requisite minimum validity. Thereafter, he applied for reissuance of his passport before the Indian authorities in the United Kingdom and, on account of the said process, sought extension of time for his return to India. However, his application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 22.07.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no deliberate violation of the order of the learned trial Court. The petitioner had booked his return ticket well within the permitted period but could not travel due to the issue relating to the validity of his passport. It is further argued that immediately thereafter he took steps for reissuance of his passport and has throughout remained willing to return to India and face the proceedings. It is also argued that the petitioner had already furnished a bank guarantee of Rs.15 lakhs and that a short extension would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted extension of time for the said purpose. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has already overstayed the period granted by the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.03 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43264-2026 (O&M) -3- learned trial Court and has not complied with the direction to return to India and mark his presence on or before 30.06.2026. It is further argued that the explanation regarding non-boarding of the flight on account of passport validity does not justify the continued stay abroad. It was submitted that the petitioner does not require any minimum period of validity of his passport for returning to India and, therefore, he can return to India without waiting for any fresh passport or renewal. The State also expressed apprehension that his continued absence may affect the investigation, which is still pending. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing arguments of both the sides and without going into the correctness of the submissions or the stand taken by either of the parties, this Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted a short and final opportunity to return to India. The record shows that the petitioner had earlier been granted permission to remain in the United Kingdom for a specified period and had also furnished a bank guarantee of Rs.15 lakhs. He has placed on record material to show that steps were taken regarding his passport after the expiry of the period earlier granted by the Trial Court. At the same time, the concern expressed by the State regarding the petitioner's continued absence cannot be completely ignored. The petitioner is required to comply with the directions of the Trial Court and to remain available for the proceedings in India. Keeping in view the overall circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions, the petitioner is granted a period of one and a half months from today to return to India and appear before the learned trial Court. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.03 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43264-2026 (O&M) -4- 6. The petitioner shall, on his return, appear before the learned trial Court and abide by all the conditions already imposed upon him, as well as any further direction which may be passed by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. The order dated 22.07.2026 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 03.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.03 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document