Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/53423/2020 of SATNAM SINGH RANDHAWA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHM.Cr.C. No.53423/2020
(Satnam Singh Randhawa Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 31/12/2020
Shri Vinay Gandhi with Shri Dharmendra Khanchandani,learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard through video conferencing.
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has beenfiled by the petitioner for extension of time in respect of thepermission which is granted by this Court by order dated04/12/2020 in Criminal Revision No.1946/2020 to visit Delhi for aperiod of 30 days w.e.f. 04/12/2020 to 04/01/2021.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is thatthe petitioner was granted permission to visit Delhi under properArmed Police escort/custody for the purpose of makingarrangements for liver transplant of Gagandeep and Ramandeep.He submits that the petitioner is the sole person being uncle totake care of two ailing person and that the petitioner has alreadygot them registered with Jeevandan Cadaver TransplantationProgramme and awaiting for donor for the transplantation of theliver. He submits that till now the donor has not been identifiedand the affected ailing persons are his nephew and a couple ofweeks the donor will be made available, therefore, now extensionbe granted to the petitioner to remain in Delhi for a further periodof about 4 weeks.
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the State opposingthe prayer has submitted that the arrangement of the donor isuncertain, therefore, the petitioner can be granted liberty to renewthe prayer as and when the donor is arranged and the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of livertransplantation.
Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances and takingnote of the fact that till now the donor has not been identified andalso considering the submission of learned counsel for the Statein respect of liberty to renew the prayer after identification of thedonor, I am of the opinion that no case for granting the prayermade in the M.Cr.C. at this stage is made out.
M.Cr.C. is accordingly rejected, however, with liberty to thepetitioner to renew the prayer as and when the donor is identifiedand the need of the petitioner arises for his presence for thepurpose of transplantation.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Vacation Judge
krjoshi
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI Date: 2020.12.31 16:35:28 +05'30'