THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10443 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is A-1 in C.C.No.227 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, Prakasham District. He approached the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, for relaxation/cancellation of the conditions imposed on him while granting bail. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that if the conditions are relaxed there is every likelihood of the petitioner not facing trial. 3. Paragraph Nos.13 to 15 of the order passed by the learned Magistrate need to be noted and they are thus: “Since this Court has no power to seize the passport, the same was also not seized. Because the petitioner has got the passport on his hand there is every possibility to leave India and therefore, the condition of appearance and signing before the Superintendent of this Court on every FRIDAY between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. is imposed. The petitioner/first accused can very well co- operate for the trial and he can get it completed shortly. Therefore, under these circumstances when the career of the petitioner/first accused and the life of the de-facto complainant are weighed; the balance is in favour of the de-facto complainant only. The factual matrix depict that the petitioner while pleading innocence, he doesn’t want to proceed with the trial to establish the same but instead he has been trying since the inception of his production before the Court, to run off to USA by leaving his wife and case to their fate. Scrutinizing carefully all the factual aspects besides the circumstances of the case, this court sincerely feels that the undeserved indulgence or liberal attitude in allowing the petitioner to leave the country may cause serious injustice to the complainant because she can no longer endure or wait for the arrival of the petitioner again from USA and the court must hear the loud cry for justice of a destitute woman. Therefore, it is not a fit case to accord the permission to the petitioner to leave to U.S.A. or relax any more conditions.” 4. Hence, this application by the petitioner seeking relaxation of the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting bail to the petitioner on 31-08-2010. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to necessarily leave India to renew his employment authorization and therefore, the condition as to not to leave India imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting bail is required to be relaxed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – de- facto complainant submits that once the petitioner is allowed leaving India, there is every likelihood of his not facing trial. Learned counsel further submits that A-4 having secured bail once, failed to appear before the Court for about three years and consequently N.B.W. came to be issued. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of case being taken-up in view of the pendency of the quash petition filed by A-5 and A-6. 9. As seen from the material brought on record, the petitioner came to be arrested on execution of N.B.W. and Calendar Case is of the year 2007. The learned Magistrate has considered the material brought on record in right perspective and came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out valid ground for relaxation of the conditions imposed on him. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the condition imposed on the petitioner with regard to his appearance before the Superintendent of the trial Court on every Friday can be relaxed. With regard to permitting him to leave the country, I am of the view that it is not desirable to grant any such permission since the case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri. I deem it appropriate to direct the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, to expedite the trial, if necessary, splitting up the case against the persons who are not appearing before the Court; the learned Magistrate has to make every effort to see that the case is disposed of by 15-12-2010. In the event of the case being not disposed of on or before 15-12-2010, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his request for relaxation of the condition so as to enable him to leave the country to renew his employment authorization. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J October 29, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. by 01-11-2010. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10443 of 2010 October 29, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by 01-11-2010. B/o.PN