CNR No.

HRKU03-005250-2023 -1- CHI/815/2023

STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS VIJAY TANWAR AND ORS.

Present: Shri Bhagwant Singh, APP for the State assisted by Shri Ms.
Pooja Gaur, Advocate for the complainant.
Accused Vijay Tanwar on bail represented by Shri Subhash
Tanwar, Advocate.
ORDER:-
This order of mine shall dispose of application moved on

behalf of applicant/accused seeking permission to travel abroad.

2. Brief facts as pleaded in the application are that daughter of

applicant namely Muskan is residing at Melbourne (Australia) since

October, 2018 and at present she is pregnant and her delivery was opined

by doctor in February, 2024 and therefore, presence of applicant at the

time of delivery is must and necessary to perform religious ceremonies for

the newly born child of his daughter and thus prayed that required

permission may please be accorded to him being his fundamental right to

travel abroad with conditions. It was further contended that no prejudice

and injustice will be caused to the other party if the application in hand is

ordered to be allowed, whereas, applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and

injury, if the present application is not allowed. In support of his

contention, learned counsel for the applicant/accused placed reliance upon

case law titled as 2022(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 731 (SC) and 2020(3) Law

Herald 2318 (P&H) and prayed that instant application be allowed.

3. On the other hand, present application was vehemently

opposed by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by

learned counsel for the complainant by filing reply to the same by

alleging that the applicant/accused has no right to file the application for

(Jatin Garg)
CJM, Kurukshetra,
29.01.2024 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No. HRKU03-005250-2023 -2- CHI/815/2023
STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS VIJAY TANWAR AND ORS.

allowing him to go abroad as he is involved in multiple criminal litigation,

detailed as under:

i) FIR No. 415 dated 04.08.2022, registered U/s 420, 406,

120B & 506 IPC, Police Station City Thanesar, pending in

this Court.

ii) Present case pertaining to FIR No. 433 dated 17.08.2022,

registered under Section 420, 406, 120B IPC, in Police

Station City Thanesar.

iii) Complaint under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 506, 120-

B IPC bearing CRM-M-16354-2016 pending before the

Hon’ble High Court regarding the litigation pending with

Advocate Sandeep Chopra regarding the commission of

same offence of fraud, forgery and cheating.

4. Thus, the applicant/accused is habitual offender and prior to

this, applicant/accused moved two separate applications before the

learned Courts for the same very purpose on some other ground and both

the applications were dismissed by the Court vide order dated 09.11.2022

and 13.12.2022. It was further contended that application filed for the

same purpose in FIR No. 415 was allowed by this Court and further

Hon'ble High Court also upheld the order with the condition to deposit of

Rs.5,00,000/- in the form of a Fixed Deposit with the Trial Court vide

order dated 25.01.2024 passed in C.R. No. CRM-M-62370 of 2023.

Further it was contended that the matter in dispute in the instant FIR is

(Jatin Garg)
CJM, Kurukshetra,
29.01.2024 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No. HRKU03-005250-2023 -3- CHI/815/2023
STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS VIJAY TANWAR AND ORS.

different matter and hence, if this Court comes to the conclusion that

applicant/accused vijay Kumar is entitled to travel abroad, then condition

of depositing of Rs.5,00,000/- be imposed upon the accused before

allowing the instant application. It was further contended that in the

instant case, applicant/accused has defrauded the complainant and thereby

induced him to deliver a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and caused wrongful loss

to the complainant and thus, in case permission is granted to accused for

traveling abroad, there are chances of him absconding from the trial or

tampering with the evidence and same will cause prejudice to the trial of

the present case.

5. I have heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State

assisted by learned Counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel

for applicant/accused and have perused the record of the case very

thoroughly and carefully.

6. The learned counsel for applicant/accused has argued that the

applicant/accused wants to go abroad as his daughter is pregnant and

doctor has opined her delivery by February, 2024 and it was further

submitted that accused is ready to abide by all such conditions as the

Court wishes to impose before granting said permission. On the other

hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned

counsel for the complainant has opposed the present application on the

ground that in case, such permission is given, the accused might misuse

the concession of bail and there are chances of him fleeing from the trial.

(Jatin Garg)
CJM, Kurukshetra,
29.01.2024 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No. HRKU03-005250-2023 -4- CHI/815/2023
STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS VIJAY TANWAR AND ORS.

7. The applicant is facing trial in relation to FIR in question

registered under Sections 120B, 406, 420 & 506 IPC. The

applicant/accused was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble

Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 07.10.2022 and same

was made absolute vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed by Hon’ble Punjab

and Haryana High Court in CRM-M-46609-2022 and till date charges

have not been framed against the above named accused and his associates

till date. Moreover, the application in hand is supported by medical

records of his daughter, wherein, expected date of delivery of his daughter

is clearly showing as 19.02.2024.

8. Further, vide Office Memorandum No. VI/401/1/5/2019 of

Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division dated

10.10.2019, it has been mandated by the Passport Authorities to get a no

objection certificate from the Court in respect of applicants who have

pending criminal cases in Courts. Furthermore, vide Notification dated

25.08.1993 of Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs,

Government of India hereby exempts citizens of India against whom

proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by

them are pending before a Criminal Court in India and who produce

orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India,

from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub Section (2) of

Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the conditions contained therein.

9. Since right to go abroad is a basic fundamental right and till

(Jatin Garg)
CJM, Kurukshetra,
29.01.2024 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No. HRKU03-005250-2023 -5- CHI/815/2023
STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS VIJAY TANWAR AND ORS.

date the allegations of accused are yet to be proved. Thus, in view of the

above said case laws and own undertaking by the applicant to abide by all

the terms and condition for the purpose of securing his presence before

this Court after attending the rituals/rites in question, the application in

hand is hereby allowed and permission to travel abroad for the period

mentioned in the application is hereby given to applicant, subject to

condition that he will appear on the next date of hearing and will not

misuse the concession of bail.

Pronounced. (Jatin Garg)

29.01.2024. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kurukshetra. 29.01.2024
(UID:HR0278)

Note: This order contains five pages and all pages have been
checked and signed by me.
(Jatin Garg)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kurukshetra. 29.01.2024.
(Ravi Kumar SGG-II) (UID:HR0278)

I attest to the authenticity

of this document Digitally

RAVI Signed By
Digitally signed by RAVI
KUMAR

KUMAR Location: District Courts

Kurukshetra
Date: 2024.01.30
11:46:40 +0530

(Jatin Garg)
CJM, Kurukshetra,
29.01.2024 (UID:HR0278)