In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-14036 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:17.5.2010 Sanjay Garg .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 1.5.2010 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana whereby permission to go abroad has been declined to the petitioner. The petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.59 dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 379, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. In the FIR charges have been framed and the case is listed before the learned trial Court on 3.7.2010. Against the order framing charges the petitioner has filed a revision petition which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for 4.8.2010. The petitioner is Executive Director of M/s Longowalia Yarns Limited which was earlier known as M/s Amarson Yarns Limited. The petitioner is to visit China in pursuance to the invitation letter so as to finalize another deal of purchasing material of worth 2 million U.S. Dollars. The learned trial Court Cr. Misc. No.M-14036 of 2010 [2] vide order dated 1.5.2010 (Annexure-P.4) has declined the application of the petitioner for going abroad on the ground that in case the petitioner absconds and does not return back from abroad, it would hamper the proceedings. In fact, the petitioner had earlier been granted permission by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2005 (Annexure-P.5) to go abroad to China from 25.12.2005 to 9.2.2006. However, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner availed of the concession and he returned back. He was also granted permission by the learned trial Court to go abroad vide order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure-P.6) but he did not go abroad. The petitioner is a person of substantial means. The apprehension expressed by the learned Judicial Magistrate that he would abscond can be safeguarded by imposing conditions. Besides, the petitioner on an earlier occasion had returned after his visit abroad. It is not disputed that the petitioner has business dealings and commitments abroad. Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is allowed to go abroad. This is more so for the reason that the petitioner has stated that he would return by the next date of hearing i.e. 3.7.2010 fixed before the learned trial Court. Moreover, this Court had earlier also granted permission vide earlier order dated 15.12.2005 (Annexure-P.5) and the learned trial Court had granted permission vide order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure-P.6). In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to go abroad subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10 Lacs to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate undertaking to Cr. Misc. No.M-14036 of 2010 [3] appear in Court on his return from abroad on or before 3.7.2010. (ii) The petitioner shall bind himself that he shall return from abroad and appear before the trial Magistrate. (iii) The petitioner shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.10 Lacs each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate, for his return from abroad and appearance before the Court. (iv) The sureties and bonds shall be accepted and after acceptance of the sureties, the petitioner shall be permitted to go abroad till 3.7.2010. (v) On return, the petitioner shall continue to be bound by the old bonds and conditions imposed while releasing him on bail and the conditions imposed for his going abroad shall become inoperative. May 17, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*