IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35419 of 2010 SHUBHRA @ KUMARI SHUBHRA @ SHUBHRA ROY D/O SRI RAM ASHISH SINGH & WIFE OF SRI RAJESH ROY --- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. CBI. --- OPP. PARTY ----------- 02 07.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the C.B.I.. By filing the present application petitioner seeks modification in the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. no. 7376 of 2007 (Annexure-2) whereby she was permitted to remain abroad till September 2010 with a condition that if and when required, she will appear at the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the application submits that the petitioner is presently employed in United States of America. She is living with her husband and providing support to her family and is taking care of her newly-born baby. It is submitted that aforesaid order be modified and she may be allowed to remain in the United States of America and continue with her job. She has undertaken to come back India and attend the criminal proceeding pending against her as and when called upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an identical/similar circumstance one of the accuseds of the present case moved this Court for modification/extension of the order wherein a Bench of this Court by order dated 27.04.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. no.51889 of 2007 (Annexure-4) allowed the petitioner to remain outside India and pursue studies. On perusal of the said order it 2 appears that the application was allowed in the following terms:- “The anxiety of the Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation to procure attendance of the petitioner so that trial does not get derailed or delayed can be well understood but keeping in mind the ground reality that prosecution of such kinds carry-on for years and time cannot standstill for any accused, the Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to carry-on with his employment or his avocation with a categorical direction that the petitioner will be alert enough to respond to any direction which may be passed by the court below. If his personal presence is required under law for the trial he will have to ensure the same. But it is also clarified that his presence either through himself or through his counsel may be permitted in accordance with law depending on the stage of the trial.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present order dated 19.02.2007 may also be modified in the aforesaid terms. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. submits that altogether 249 accuseds are facing the trial before the learned Special Judge out of which 237 accuseds including the petitioner are appearing before the Court. It is stated that some of the accuseds have died. Steps are afoot to separate the trial and thereafter to proceed with the case by framing charge(s) against the accused persons. It is thus submitted that charge(s) are soon likely to be framed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that liberty to remain outside India be granted for a specified period only. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Petitioner has already been released on anticipatory bail. Till 3 date she has been appearing in the Court. A Bench of this Court having regard to all the relevant facts has passed order as noticed above. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel representing the petitioner assures the Court that petitioner shall appear in person as and when she is called upon to appear for framing of charge against her. Considering the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court modifies the order dated 19.02.2007 in the following manner:- (i) The petitioner is granted liberty to remain outside India and carry on with her employment/avocation with a condition that the petitioner will be alert enough to respond to any direction which may be passed by the Court in seisin of the trial. If her personal presence is required under law in the trial she will ensure her appearance before the Court. This Court, at the same time, clarifies that her presence either through herself or through her counsel may be permitted in accordance with law depending on the stage of the trial. If there is any default on the part of the petitioner in complying with the specific direction of the Court it will be open to the trial Court to take all needful steps in accordance with law. The application is allowed with the direction(s) aforesaid. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)