Shubham v. State

1. Present petition has been filed seeking permission to travel to Jind, Haryana in connection with the marriage of the petitioner and to attend other social and professional obligations for a period of 2 months.

2. The facts of this case are very peculiar in nature. The FIR No.865/2022 under Sections 307/34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Kotwali. The accused, who is the permanent resident of Jind, Haryana, was arrested on 21.12.2022. The offence alleged being triable by the Sessions Court, the petitioner moved an application for bail. Learned Vacation Judge /learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.12.2022 granted bail subject to certain conditions which inter alia included “that the accused/applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Delhi without prior permission of this court”. The petitioner aggrieved of this moved an application seeking modification of the above mentioned bail order dated 28.12.2022. The request for modification was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.01.2023.

3. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing Crl. M.C. 631/2023 wherein, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2023 declined the request of the petitioner for modification of the said condition. The Coordinate Bench inter alia observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek permission from the learned Trial Court as and when the requirement of the petitioner to leave the territory of Delhi is necessary. It was further inter alia observed that the learned Trial Court shall consider such request on merits.

4. Pursuant to this, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission before the jurisdictional magistrate. However, the learned MM rejected the application on the ground that due to the offence being triable by the Sessions Court and the conditions having been imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, such an application would only lie before the learned Sessions Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the chargesheet has not yet been filed in this case, the Trial Court would be the jurisdictional magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that therefore the order passed by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate is bad in law. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has aged parents and the marriage of the petitioner is fixed in the month of February and the functions are to start from 13.02.2023.

6. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State submits that there is no error in the order of the learned MM and since the bail condition was imposed by the learned Sessions Court, the petitioner should have moved the learned Sessions Court for seeking permission to travel beyond the jurisdiction of Delhi.

7. I consider that the application being moved by the petitioner before the jurisdictional magistrate seeking permission to travel to Jind, Haryana has wrongly been rejected by the learned MM. Since the chargesheet has not been filed, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be the Trial Court for all the purposes before the case is committed to the learned Sessions Court. It is also pertinent to mention here that initially the bail was granted by the learned Vacation Judge /learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus the order dated 03.02.2023 is set aside. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking permission to travel to Jind, Haryana before the Ilaqua Magistrate/jurisdictional magistrate till the case is committed to the learned Sessions Court and the learned MM shall consider the application expeditiously in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with law.

8. The present petition is disposed of.

9. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 06, 2023