JUDGMENT 1. - Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor.Heard learned counsel for parties.The petitioner who was set at liberty on furnishing bail bonds was not present himself on March 3, 1993, the date fixed by the trial Court and moved an application for exemption from personal attendance on the ground that the petitioner has gone abroad. The trial Court rejected the application holding that the petitioner has left the territory of India without seeking permission from the Court and in that he has misued liberty. 2. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Salim v. State, 1992 Cr LR 807 for the purpose that on the technics ground, the petitioner could not seek prior permission of the Court, left India for join his job and prayed that in the present case, the trial Court should not have rejected the application of the petitioner exempting his personal attendance. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the case is yet at the initial stage and charge is yet to be framed and for the framing of charge, it is stated, that personal attendance is not necessary when the charge is framed and the charge can be pronounced to the accused through his counsel. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. He contends that the decision in Salim's case (supra) rested on its own facts, here, the petitioner has left India without seeking permission of the Court during the pendency of the trial and it is only now that the petitioner has saught exemption. He further states that from the application itself, it appears that between March, 1992 to July, 1992, the petitioner was here in India, yet before his leaving he did not seek any permission that time also. 6. In the present case, from the order-sheets produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the Court, it is apparent that the petitioner had earlier also remained absent. The petitioner was granted bail by the Order dated August 12, 1987. Since the petitioner was absent on June 26, 1988 and warrant of arrest was issued against him after for felling the bail bonds. Thereafter, warrant of arrest could not be executed against the petitioner. The petitioner was granted bail by the Order dated August 12, 1987. Since the petitioner was absent on June 26, 1988 and warrant of arrest was issued against him after for felling the bail bonds. Thereafter, warrant of arrest could not be executed against the petitioner. It was reported some where in 1989 that the petitioner has left India and is in Soudi Arbia. The petitioner did not thereafter appeared until April 29, 1992. On his appearance, the Court again released him on bail on the condition that he will not leave Rajasthan without the permission of the Court. Thereafter, admittedly the petitioner without seeking permission, left for Saudi Arabia in July 1992 and absented from the proceedings thereafter. It is only after leaving the Indian territory, the application for exemption has been moved. There was not impediment to move the application before leaving India if he wanted to it is also apparent from the application and contention raised before me that the petitioner has been coming to India off and on. The petitioner has not only left the country without permission of the Court but has also avoided execution of warrant during his stay in India. 7. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. The principle enunciated in Salim's case was on entirely different set of facts where it was the case of an unemployed person leaving India without permission of the Court as he was in dire necessity to get a job to earn his livelihood t was not a case where a person securing a long term job was retuning to India off and on and yet avoided the process of the Court and even after getting the benefit of the Court's order on getting the second bail border in his favour has flouted the condition of the Order of the Court and left India without permission of the Court 8. The petitioner shall present himself on the next date of hearing. In the interest of justice, it is further ordered that if the petitioner presents himself before the Court on next date of hearing, he will be deemed to be exempted from personal presence on March 3, 1993 and up-to the next date and the Court will pass fresh orders as to further course to be adopted. In the interest of justice, it is further ordered that if the petitioner presents himself before the Court on next date of hearing, he will be deemed to be exempted from personal presence on March 3, 1993 and up-to the next date and the Court will pass fresh orders as to further course to be adopted. The pronouncement of charge against petitioner shall not be deferred for his presence as the same can be pronounced in the presence of his counsel. The further trial be not held up for that reason alone.The petition stands disposed off accordingly. *******