HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 119 / 2018
Vikas Garg S/o Shri Ashok Garg, R/o House No.242, Vikas Nagar,
14/4, Neemuch Police Station Neemuch, MP, Presently R/o 2201,
IIIrd Avenue Seatle, USA.
—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP.
—-Respondent
Connected with
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 120 / 2018
Vikas Garg S/o Shri Ashok Garg, R/o House No.242, Vikas Nagar,
14/4, Neemuch Police Station Neemuch, MP, Presently R/o 2201,
IIIrd Avenue Seatle, USA.
—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP.
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, PP
Mr. S.S. Hora, for complainant
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Order
12/01/2018
Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also
learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant.
These misc. petitions have been preferred on behalf of
accused-petitioner with a prayer to quash and set-aside the order
dated 19.12.2017, whereby the application has been rejected by
trial court for releasing the passport surrendered by the accused-
petitioner in compliance of the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by
the Co-ordinate of this Court in S.B. Criminal Bail Application
No.15406/2017 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The prayer has also
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]
been made to grant permanent exemption from personal
appearance in Criminal Case No.198/2013 pending before the
Court of Additional Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate No.15,
Jaipur Metropolitan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-
petitioner is working on the post of Senior Data Scientist in
Amazon Company at Seattle, WA, USA. She further submits that
the petitioner has come to India on his family leave, which as per
the policy of the company is going to expire on 28.01.2018.
Learned counsel submits that vide e-mail dated 25.11.2017, the
Company has required presence of the petitioner at the company’s
office looking to heavy arrears of work due to be discharged by
the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that it is an
established legal proposition that every person has a right for
earning his livelihood gracefully and to travel as per his wish, may
be with certain reasonable restrictions.
In support of the contentions raised, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in Jitsingh
Kalirai, Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kulbir
Singh Ahuja – Criminal Revision Application No.55 of 1989
decided on 09.06.1989by the Bombay High Court and Rajesh
Sharma Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Anr. – Criminal Appeal
No.1265 of 2017, decided on 27.07.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant-respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer
mainly on the ground that the accused-petitioner delayed the
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]
proceedings pending against him since the year 2012 till 2017 by
not recording his presence in the criminal matters pending for the
offence under the Indian Penal Code, Domestic Violence Act and
also in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court
to the observations recorded by the trial court in the order
impugned dated 19.12.2017 in regard to such delaying tactics
adopted by the accused-petitioner. It has further been contended
that the amount granted for maintenance of the wife complainant
is also in arrears which has not been paid and the accused-
petitioner is avoiding his service in the proceedings concerned.
Having considered the arguments advanced by both the
sides and the legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rajesh Sharma’s case (supra) in regard to the
proceedings for the offence under Section 498A IPC that “in
respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India, impounding of
passport or issuance of red corner notice should not be a routine.”
This Court finds that the passport which has been surrendered by
the accused-petitioner before the learned trial court deserves to
be released in favour of accused-petitioner with certain conditions.
Preventing the petitioner from joining his job and from
fulfilling the professional requirement can be of no help in the
criminal matters pending against the petitioner. However, it
appears reasonable in the interest of justice that he is subjected
to certain conditions for attending the Court proceedings in a
regulated manner. Indisputably, if he is restricted from taking the
journey to Seattle, WA, USA i.e. the place for his job, it may
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]
adversely affect his career and right to earn his livelihood with
grace which may amount to abuse of process of law.
Thus, while permitting release of the passport of the
petitioner, in order to secure quick and unhampered progress in
the proceedings pending against the accused-petitioner following
conditions are imposed upon him :-
(1)- In all the proceedings pending against the petitioner at the
instance of the complainant-wife till date, wherein the
service of the accused-petitioner has not yet been effected
and even where the proceedings are taking place ex-parte
against him, the accused-petitioner shall get his presence
recorded before the concerned courts at his own within a
period of ten days from today. The list of such cases will be
made available to counsel for the petitioner by the counsel
appearing for the complainant.
(2)- The petitioner shall get a certificate from his employer
company, the self attested copy of which should be
furnished by him to all the courts, wherein the proceedings
against him are pending. Such certificate shall specifically
mention the place and position wherein he is appointed to
work at. In case of any change of job or place of work, the
petitioner will be under obligation to inform the aforesaid
courts within a period of 15 days positively.
(3)- The petitioner shall inform his employer about the details of
the criminal cases pending against him alongwith the
details of courts wherein such cases are pending and
petitioner will ensure that employer company gives him
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]
permission to come back to India for attending such cases
atleast three times in a calendar year.
(4)- The accused-petitioner through counsel representing him
will request the courts concerned for getting the cases
listed during the months of April, August December
atleast once till they are concluded and will ensure to
record his presence before the courts concerned whenever
the cases are so listed during such months. Besides these
three occasions, he may also be required to remain present
before the court concerned as the need arises, and he will
make every endeavour to attend the court whenever called
upon to do so.
(5)- The petitioner shall get prepared a Fixed Deposit in some
nationalized bank at Jaipur in the sum of Rs.1.0 crore
atleast for a period of three years, within a period of one
month from today which will be kept in safe custody with
the court of Additional Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate
No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan. This Fixed Deposit will be kept
as a security for complying with the directions issued by
this Court vide this order.
(6)- The petitioner shall comply with the orders passed in favour
of the complainant wife in the proceedings under Section
125 Cr.P.C. or under Domestic Violence Act and whatever
amount is falling in arrears towards the petitioner till date
as per the order in existence as on today shall be paid to
the complainant wife within a period of 15 days from today.
(7)- On ensuring that the petitioner has fulfilled the conditions
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]
imposed herein-above, the trial court will release the
passport of the petitioner after obtaining his personal bond
and sureties to the satisfaction of that Court alongwith his
undertaking to abide by the conditions mentioned herein
and to surrender the passport in case of default of such
conditions.
Both the misc. petitions are allowed with the terms
conditions stated above and the order dated 19.12.2017 passed
by the Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.15,
Jaipur Metropolitan is quashed and set-aside.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.
Rm/-5960