Anil Kumar Pathak vs State of Chhattisgarh

M.M. Shrivastava, J.

Heard on admission.

By this revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Durg In S.T. No. 68/10, by which his application for grant of permission to leave India has been rejected.

The applicant is facing trial for alleged commission of offence u/s 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. Vide order dated 9.8.2010 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1815/10, the applicant was directed to be released on bail on various conditions inter alia on the condition that he shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

The applicant moved an application for grant of permission to leave India for a limited period of 6 months on the submission that he is an employee of Sunland Hotel in Maldives and if he does not join his duties, he may lose his job. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned trial Court by recording that the applicant has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2010 on the condition that the applicant shall remain present on each and every date of trial and the applicant has not disclosed in his application the exact period as to from which date to which date he wants to remain abroad as also on the consideration that grant of such permission would result in violation of the order of this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in his application, the applicant has submitted that he will remain abroad for 6 months. Learned counsel further submits that this clearly indicates that a particular period was indicated. The other submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that one of the conditions for grant of bail by this Court is that the applicant will not leave the India without prior permission of the trial Court and therefore, it would not be volatile of the conditions if permission is granted to him by imposing appropriate conditions.

On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the State is that the applicant is facing trial for charges of commission of grave offence. He submits that other co-accused persons have already absconded and till date they have not been apprehended. Next submission of learned counsel for the State is that if the applicant is permitted to leave India, the other conditions imposed by this Court would be violated as the applicant may not appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the concerned trial Court. He further submits that once the application for permission to leave India has been rejected, the applicant is not entitled to challenge the same.

From the impugned order, it appears that the two reasons assigned for rejecting the applications are that the applicant has not specifically stated as to from which date up to which date, he will remain abroad and secondly that and that if such application is allowed it will result in violation of conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail.

Even though the applicant has not given any specific dates in his application, he has sated that he would remain outside the country in Maldives in connection with his job for 6 months. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the applicant has not given any specific date Secondly, if such application is allowed with the appropriate conditions, it would always be binding on the applicant to remain present on each and every date of trial and therefore, merely because permission is granted to leave India on appropriate conditions, that by itself would not violate the conditions already imposed on the applicant by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2010. It appears that because of aforesaid conditions, the learned trial Court has rejected the application without taking into consideration other relevant circumstances, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court shall consider afresh applicant''s application for grant of permission to leave India on just and relevant considerations and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the law.

The revision is accordingly allowed.