CRM No. M-16080 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. M-16080 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.7.2009 Ravinder Singh Bhasin ..... Petitioner vs CBI, New Delhi ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. S. Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Notice of motion. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate, who is present in court accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that he has a copy of the paper-book and is ready for arguments. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of his passport and permitting him to go to Australia, has been rejected. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is an accused in a case bearing FIR No. 250 dated 16.8.2008 now RC AC 2 of 2008 A0004 registered under Sections 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B IPC. The petitioner was arrested more than a month after the registration of FIR on 16.8.2008 and was released on bail vide order dated 6.11.2008. As a condition, the petitioner was required to surrender his passport and was directed not to leave the country without permission of the court. The application was filed seeking release of the passport and also to permit the petitioner to go abroad on the ground that he has to get his daughter admitted for a course titled as Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management in William Angliss Institute of Specialist Centre for Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts. The application having been rejected by the learned Special Judge, the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that investigation of the case is almost complete. The petitioner being head of the family is duty bound to educate his children and in the process in case he has to visit Australia, the permission should not be declined merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. Pendency of a case should not come in the way of performance of his moral obligations as head of the family. Even though the FIR was registered against him more than a year back but no challan has been presented till date. The petitioner is seeking go to Australia with his daughter and CRM No. M-16080 of 2009 (2) get her settled there. This was required seeing recent attacks on Indians in Australia. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish any kind of security as there is no likelihood of his absconding for the reason that he has large establishments and properties in the country. Reliance was placed upon 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 912 Naginder Singh Rana vs State of Punjab. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the conduct of the petitioner it is evident that the same is not just and fair. In the application filed before the court below it was stated that the petitioner wanted to go abroad from 10.7.2009 to 31.10.2009. The application having been rejected on 5.6.2009, in the petition filed during vacations the relief was changed for the period from 1.7.2009 to 30.9.2009. He further submitted that the learned court below had rightly rejected the prayer made by the petitioner as he had failed to furnish any details of his family members in the application. It is not mandatorily required that the petitioner only is to accompany his daughter, in fact, no one is required to accompany her. In case some initial support is required, any other member of the family can very well accompany her. The petitioner is the main accused and the mastermind in a high profile case. The formalities for admission of his daughter are already complete as she is only to go and join the course. There is every likelihood of petitioner's absconding, as earlier also he had been running away from the process of law. The case is not fit where the petitioner should be granted permission to go abroad. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is not a case where the visit of the petitioner to Australia is mandatorily required. As per the documents placed on record process for admission of the daughter of the petitioner is already complete as she is only to go there and join the course starting from 14.7.2009. The petitioner had not only failed to furnish the list of other family members in the application filed before the learned court below but has not disclosed the same even before this court to enable it to come to a conclusion that there are no other adult members in the family who could accompany the daughter of the petitioner in case it is so urgent. The claim of the petitioner that he was duty bound being head of the family does not carry any help due to his involvement in a high profile case which is just at the fag end of the investigation and the absence of the petitioner at this stage may further delay the process thereof. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. The petition is dismissed. 1.7.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge