Gian Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 485 of 1999)
WITH
Crl Appeal No. 579 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 489 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 485 of 1999)
WITH
Crl Appeal No. 579 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 489 of 1999)
Petitioner: Gian Singh
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 485 of 1999)
WITH
Crl Appeal No. 579 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 489 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 485 of 1999)
WITH
Crl Appeal No. 579 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 489 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 14, 1999
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 498 – Offences relating to marriage – Deprivation of the right of husband over his wife – Prosecution against British citizen by the father of erstwhile daughter in law under Section 498, IPC – In view of time likely to be taken for trial passport of accused ordered to be released on furnishing of a bond for Rs 3 lakhs with two solvent sureties – Accused also permitted to appear through counsel except when his presence is imperatively needed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 498 – Offences relating to marriage – Deprivation of the right of husband over his wife – Prosecution against British citizen by the father of erstwhile daughter in law under Section 498, IPC – In view of time likely to be taken for trial passport of accused ordered to be released on furnishing of a bond for Rs 3 lakhs with two solvent sureties – Accused also permitted to appear through counsel except when his presence is imperatively needed.
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This is a peculiar case where the appellant has acquired British citizenship and has settled down in England. His son married an Indian girl but the marriage passed through rough weather and eventually fell through. According to the appellant a decree of divorce has been passed by a court in England. Now the appellant is facing a criminal prosecution launched by the father of the erstwhile daughter-in-law under Section 498 of the Indian penal Code before a Magistrate’s Court in Rajasthan. He made an attempt to get the prosecution quashed but the High Court declined to do so. We are not disposed to disturb the said order of the High Court.
3. But something more has to be granted to the appellant or else he will be put to irreparable sufferings as his passport has now been kept by the ACJM, Rai Singh Nagar, Rajasthan. If his passport is not released to him he will be compelled to remain in India which unfortunately is not his present home, and continue to remain here until the final end of the criminal proceedings now launched. Nobody knows when the trial will commence and end. But the respondent’s counsel expressed apprehension that if the appellant is allowed to go back to England or to leave India he might not make himself available for the trial. The situation is not therefore free from difficulty. On the one side the legal process has to reach its normal culmination and on the other side the agony of the appellant that he cannot go home is genuine. We think a solution has to be worked out in the interest of justice.
4. After hearing both sides we direct the ACJM, Rai Singh Nagar, Rajasthan to return the passport of the appellant on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the said Court.
5. To ensure his attendance in the court when trail begins, we may make a provision. We agree that it would be difficult for the appellant to be present on all posting dates in the trial court. Therefore, we permit him to appear through counsel except on days when his presence is imperatively needed. He must file an application before the trial court through counsel and seek dispensation of his personal presence and ensure that his counsel would be present on his behalf on days except when his presence is indispensable. If he makes such an application the trial court shall dispense with his physical presence in court.
6. With the above reliefs we dispose of these appeals.
1. Leave granted.
2. This is a peculiar case where the appellant has acquired British citizenship and has settled down in England. His son married an Indian girl but the marriage passed through rough weather and eventually fell through. According to the appellant a decree of divorce has been passed by a court in England. Now the appellant is facing a criminal prosecution launched by the father of the erstwhile daughter-in-law under Section 498 of the Indian penal Code before a Magistrate’s Court in Rajasthan. He made an attempt to get the prosecution quashed but the High Court declined to do so. We are not disposed to disturb the said order of the High Court.
3. But something more has to be granted to the appellant or else he will be put to irreparable sufferings as his passport has now been kept by the ACJM, Rai Singh Nagar, Rajasthan. If his passport is not released to him he will be compelled to remain in India which unfortunately is not his present home, and continue to remain here until the final end of the criminal proceedings now launched. Nobody knows when the trial will commence and end. But the respondent’s counsel expressed apprehension that if the appellant is allowed to go back to England or to leave India he might not make himself available for the trial. The situation is not therefore free from difficulty. On the one side the legal process has to reach its normal culmination and on the other side the agony of the appellant that he cannot go home is genuine. We think a solution has to be worked out in the interest of justice.
4. After hearing both sides we direct the ACJM, Rai Singh Nagar, Rajasthan to return the passport of the appellant on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the said Court.
5. To ensure his attendance in the court when trail begins, we may make a provision. We agree that it would be difficult for the appellant to be present on all posting dates in the trial court. Therefore, we permit him to appear through counsel except on days when his presence is imperatively needed. He must file an application before the trial court through counsel and seek dispensation of his personal presence and ensure that his counsel would be present on his behalf on days except when his presence is indispensable. If he makes such an application the trial court shall dispense with his physical presence in court.
6. With the above reliefs we dispose of these appeals.
