[1] SB CRIM MISC PET. 2327/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2327/2009 KUSHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Date: 11.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. S.S. Rathore, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar in Criminal Case No. 261/2004, by which the application filed by the accused-petitioner for seeking permission to go abroad has been rejected on the ground that no order can be passed as the case is at the stage of awaiting the record from this Court and only after going through the original record appropriate order can be passed. It is contended by the learned counsel that the record of the case has been summoned by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 605/2005 allegedly filed by the complainant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier also the petitioner had filed a misc. petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 790/2005 for seeking direction to be [2] SB CRIM MISC PET. 2327/2009 permitted to go abroad and this Court while allowing the aforesaid misc. petition vide order dated 18.07.2005, ordered as under:- “I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2005 and order that if the petitioner furnishes a written undertaking that he shall appear in person before the trial court at the time of framing of charges, recording his plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date of pronouncement of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 261/2004, he should be permitted to visit Neitherland. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court on the dates for framing of charge, recording his plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also on the date of pronouncement of the judgment, the trial court shall be free to intimate action against him in accordance with law.” Again the petitioner had approached this Court by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/2007 for seeking permission to go abroad in connection with business and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2007 with the following directions:- “In the facts and circumstances, therefore, in the light of the order passed by this court on 18.07.2005, I hereby direct that the petitioner shall be allowed to visit Europe on furnishing an undertaking that in the event of the record being received by the learned trial court and a date of framing of the charges being fixed, the learned trial court shall give a notice of four weeks prior to the fixing of the date for framing of the charge which shall be intimated to the counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial [3] SB CRIM MISC PET. 2327/2009 court on the said date fixed for the framing of the charges. In the event of such an undertaking being filed, the learned trial court shall permit the petitioner to go abroad in the light of the earlier order of this court dated 18.07.2005. This order is subject to the condition imposed in the order dated 18.07.2005. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as and when record is returned by this Court to the learned trial Court and the case is ordered to be fixed for framing of the charge on a notice of four weeks, the petitioner undertakes to appear before the Court on the said date on which the charges are required to be framed by the learned trial Court. He also submits that earlier when he was granted permission by this Court, twice, to go abroad, nothing adverse was reported against him. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned dated 19.08.2009 passed by the trial Court as also the orders dated 18.07.2005 and 10.05.2007 passed by this Court in the earlier misc. petitions filed by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the orders passed by this Court on 18.07.2005 and 10.05.2007, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be allowed to visit Asian countries on furnishing an undertaking that in the event of the record being received by the learned trial court [4] SB CRIM MISC PET. 2327/2009 and a date of framing of the charges being fixed, the learned trial court shall give a notice of four weeks prior to the fixing of the date for framing of the charge which shall be intimated to the counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on the said date fixed for the framing of the charges. In the event of such an undertaking being filed, the learned trial court shall permit the petitioner to go abroad in the light of the earlier order of this court dated 18.07.2005. This order is subject to the condition imposed in the order dated 18.07.2005. The criminal misc. petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/