IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M-30762/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 25.10.2010. Balwant Singh ....................Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Vinay Kumar Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer for modification of the order dated 18.9.2010 passed by the learned trial Court in case bearing FIR No.135 dated 13.7.2008 under Sections 218, 465,420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120-B IPC and 13(2) 88 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Passport Act, PS City Moga, whereby the petitioner has been granted liberty to go abroad and return till 30.12.2010, subject to the petitioner furnishing surety/indemnity bonds/ bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly directed the petitioner to execute bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount and that the petitioner is ready to execute surety bond and also pledge his landed property but is unable to raise such a huge amount to furnish a bank guarantee.. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also aggrieved that he has been granted permission to go abroad till December 2010. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the petition is wholly misconceived. The prayer in application moved by the petitioner for release of his passport and granting him permission to go abroad in the aforesaid case was/is only till December 2010 in order to return back to U.K within 90 days of his departure from U.K in terms of his visa so as to enable the petitioner to secure his permanent residentship in U.K. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner was granted in toto by the learned trial court. Hence, the grievance in that regard is untenable. As regard the contention that trial Court has wrongly directed the petitioner to execute bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount, I find no illegality in the same as the alternative mode of executing surety or indemnity bond to the tune of Rs.25 lacs has already been granted by the learned trial Court in condition No.1 of the interim order dated 18.9.2010. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed with a costs of Rs.2000/- to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority,Punjab within a period of four weeks from today. 25.10.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge