CHANDRA BHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applicant is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC recorded in F.I.R. No. 100 of 2013 registered at Police Station, Boileauganj. However, the petitioner applicant has been afforded the facility of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla, H.P. One of the conditions in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 1, Shimla, while affording the facility of bail to the petitioner enjoins upon the latter to not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. Consequently, the petitioner through the instant petition seeks the indulgence of this Court to permit him to proceed to UAE, Oman and GCC area from 3rd September, 2015 to 22nd September, 2015. The necessity of the petitioner travelling to the countries aforesaid is comprised in the fact his being Director of Metropolitan, Equipments and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and in the aforesaid capacity for exploring new business opportunities is required to visit the countries aforesaid for the period aforesaid. This Court while proceeding to afford in favour of the petitioner the relief as canvassed in his application, is not to remain oblivious to the fact of its affording permission to the petitioner not begetting the ensuing effect of the trial of the case by the Magistrate concerned being unnecessarily delayed. However, the factum as manifesting in the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner of it having stayed further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 6-2 of 2014 pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla arising out of F.I.R. No. 100 registered with the police station concerned besides this Court in its rendition in Cr.MMO No. 240 of 2014 having stayed the proceedings in the Court aforesaid, obviously then the trial of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner would not suffer any casualty of its progress being delayed by the factum of the petitioner not appearing before it arising from his being permitted by this Court to travel abroad. Even otherwise, the permission previously afforded to the petitioner to travel abroad did not stand abused by the petitioner. Moreover, the status report does not divulge that the petitioner has violated any other terms and conditions of the order whereby the facility of bail was accorded in his favour by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla. Cumulatively, this Court is constrained to allow the petition. The petitioner is permitted to travel abroad i.e. UAE, Oman and GCC area from 3rd September, 2015 to 22nd September, 2015 subject to his furnishing additional personal and surety bonds to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate and also submitting itinerary of his visits in the trial Court and undertaking that on all dates when his presence is essentially required in the trial Court in connection with the proceedings in the trial, he shall remain present in person. Also that on other dates he will attend the trial Court and in the event of being prevented from doing so on account of any unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, he may seek exemption from appearance by filing an appropriate application, which the learned trial Magistrate shall consider and dispose of in accordance with law. The aforesaid failure on the part of the accused/petitioner in any manner whatsoever shall entail the consequence of cancellation of the facility of bail granted to him.