IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.36152-M of 2010 Date of Decision:14.1.2011 Suketu Yashvantlal Shah .... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for modification of order granting regular bail to the petitioner dated 20.6.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Duty), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali in case FIR No.3 dated 16.2.2009 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(i)(D) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station V.B., Phase I, Punjab at Mohali, to the extent that the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court be dispensed with and a direction be issued to the respondent to permit the petitioner to travel abroad as and when required by submitting one time reasonable security. It is contended that the petitioner is Managing Director of the Company by the name UPL Environmental Engineers Limited. The petitioner is required to travel out of the country extensively for company's work. Such travel is required for either for business development or other purposes involving the business. The petitioner's company is thus having business transactions with companies in different countries. As such he has to visit different countries from time to time. The petitioner approached the trial Court in the month of March, 2010 seeking permission to visit Maldives, Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, Canada and USA. The said Crl. M. No.36152-M of 2010 -2- application was allowed. However, due to last minute, he could not go. As such, he has approached the trial Court once again. This time also, the application of the petitioner was allowed and in terms of the same, the petitioner visited abroad and returned back and reported the said fact to the Court. It is not disputed that the petitioner is required to undertake trips abroad as detailed by him in para 14-A of his petition. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is engaged in business, which requires him to visit abroad quite frequently. Moreover, it is pointed out that the trial Court has adjourned the matter sine die as no challan has been filed till date. It is not disputed that as on date, the petitioner has not violated any of the terms and conditions as imposed by the trial Court. Further no apprehension has been expressed that he is likely to abscond or shall not return or that he has ever misused the concession of bail. In view of the above, the present petition for modifying the order dated 20.6.2009 is allowed and the petitioner is accordingly allowed to travel abroad as and when required subject to the following conditions: (a) he shall deposit a bank guarantee of Rs.20,000,00/ and the same shall remain operative till the final decision in the case qua the present petitioner. (b) The bank guarantee as imposed shall be renewed by the petitioner at regular intervals as required. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court as and when required to do so. 14.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE