Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking permission to go abroad for a short period. The petitioner for the same relief knocked at the door of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala and the prayer was declined vide impugned order dated 20.10.2004. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala which also stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.11.2004. The petitioner is now seeking quashing of the said orders. 2. Pursuant to the notice, Mr. Rajan Gupta has put in appearance on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation. It has been brought to my notice that the next date fixed before the trial Court is 21.5.2005 for consideration of charge. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajan Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent. The available record is also perused by me. 4. Mr. Sanjay Gupta contends that the petitioner is a Director in a Company named Surya Telecom Private Limited having its registered office at Sector 5, Panchkula. The said company is one of the biggest suppliers of Wireless and Radio Equipment to various Government agencies/Police and Indian Defence Forces. Most of the equipments are imported in the form of kits from various countries including Japan, China etc. The petitioner is the only Director having the requisite necessary knowledge relating to the quality, standards of all the items to be imported. It is then contended on behalf of the petitioner that every year the petitioner has to go abroad to finalise certain agreements with various companies so that his company is able to do the business in the next financial year. For this year also the petitioner is supposed to go abroad. It is then contended that the tenantive date for submission of samples of the products is in the third week of May, 2005 and for this reason it has become imperative for the petitioner to travel abroad to select the items. 5. Strengthening his arguments, the learned counsel then contends that during the investigation of the present case also, the petitioner had been joining investigation and had never committed any violation of conditions of his pre- arrest bail. The petitioner had also gone abroad thrice during the investigation after seeking permission from the concerned Court in terms of his anticipatory bail orders and always had come back in time. The petitioner had also gone abroad thrice during the investigation after seeking permission from the concerned Court in terms of his anticipatory bail orders and always had come back in time. Every time, the CBI had handed over the passport to him as directed by the concerned Court and after the return the petitioner had submitted his passport with CBI. It is then contended that the petitioner is a married person, his wife is serving as Professor in the Department of Mathematics, Panjab University, Chandigarh. He has also two school going daughters. Besides this, the petitioner is also in possession of properties worth couple of crores in his name in Panchkula, Zirakpur and other places. Therefore, there cannot be any chance of the petitioner running away from the process of law. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner be granted the concession of relief sought herein. 7. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are vehemently opposed by Mr. Gupta contending that next date before the trial Court is fixed for 21.5.2005 and in case the petitioner does not come back, the proceedings before the concerned Court would be stalled un-necessarily. He then contends that in case the petitioner does not surrender, it would be difficult for the Court to procure his presence as his warrants of arrest will not be executable outside India and the only remedy to bring him to criminal justice system would be extradition which on the face of it would be a very difficult task. 8. Countering the submissions of Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner undertakes to come back and present himself on the next date of hearing before the CBI Court i.e. 2.5.2005. The learned counsel then contends that he is ready to deposit the cash amount/ draft before the trial Court as directed by this Court and is even ready to submit the surety bond of his wife who is Professor in Panjab University, Chandigarh. 9. In my view, the petitioner is projecting his bona fides and is entitled to the relief claimed. 10. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The orders passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside/quashed. 9. In my view, the petitioner is projecting his bona fides and is entitled to the relief claimed. 10. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The orders passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside/quashed. The petitioner will be at liberty to fly abroad with the condition that he shall present himself before the concerned Court (CBI Court) on 21.5.2005 positively. He shall be depositing Rs. 10 lacs in cash/draft before the concerned Court along with a surety bond to be submitted by his wife to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The concerned Court may also impose other conditions as it deems fit and proper. In the event of complying with the aforesaid conditions, the passport of the petitioner which is already submitted before the concerned Court, shall be handed to him forthwith. 11. The present petition stands disposed of. 12. Copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner Dasti under the signatures of Court Reader.