JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. Perused the relevant papers. 2. It appears that on the criminal complaint of Smt. Ansumala for offence under Sections 494, 494/109, 114, Indian Penal Code, filed against her husband Bal Kishan and 17 others, cognizance was also taken against the petitioner Shanker Lal, who is elder brother of Bal Kishan, for offences, under Section 494 read with Sections 109 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is working as carpenter in Kuwait since 1989. The petitioner was bailed out in this case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, who impounded his pass-port. However, the trial was pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Garhi. It appear that the petitioner filed an application dated 8.3.1995, alleging that he has been working as labour in Kuwait for last 16-17 years, that he has to go back to Kuwait to join his duty in April, 1995, that he shall present himself in the Court as and when directed and that if he fails to report on duty then his service will be terminated and, therefore, his pass-port may be given back to him. The learned Magistrate by order dated 8.3.1995 dismissed that application. 3. In this case, the statement of complainant PW Mst. Ansumala has been recorded and as per order-sheet dated 7.12.1994 her evidence has already been closed. Since in this case as many as 18 accused persons are involved, some of the accused persons remain absent on the dates fixed with the result the trial in this case has been protracted. 4. Shri M.L. Kala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to deposit receipt of fixed deposit for an amount of rupees ten thousand, duly pledged in favour of the learned trial Court and is also prepared to give an undertaking to the effect that he shall appear in person before the trial Court on the date of recording of his plea under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, and on the date of pronouncement of judgment as also on any other date as and when ordered by the Court. 5. Simply because a person is involved in a criminal case, he cannot be deprived of his livelihood by seizing his pass- port. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that the impugned order is bit harsh and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Simply because a person is involved in a criminal case, he cannot be deprived of his livelihood by seizing his pass- port. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that the impugned order is bit harsh and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 6. I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 8.3.1995, only to the extent it relates to the petitioner and order that if the petitioner Shanker Lal deposits fixed deposit receipt for an amount of Rs. fifteen thousand issued by any nationalised bank in his favour and pledges the same in favour of learned Civil Judge Jr. Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Garhi and gives a written undertaking that he shall appear in person before the trial Court at the time of recording his plea under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and on the date of pronouncement of the judgment in Cr. Case No. 1754/92, Smt. Ansumala v. Bal Kishan and Ors. , then his pass-port issued by the Government of India be handed over to him, after keeping a photostat copy thereof.A copy of this order be also sent to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Garhi, District Banswara for information and compliance.Petition allowed. *******