B. N. CHATURVEDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 2 suffers from knee ailment. The said respondent was earlier by way of an order dated 28th October, 2006 allowed to visit London, u. K. by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned subject to certain conditions. The doctor concerned at London, U. K. in view of examination and investigations carried out opined that the respondent No. 2 may require some surgery or knee replacement. He advised the said respondent to seek treatment for the ailment abroad as according to him U. K. does not offer the least evasive form of surgery for the knee. He recommended two orthopedic specialist centres for such treatment. The respondent No. 2 accordingly applied before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for being permitted to visit florida/u. S. A. to enable him to participate in a research study at MAYO CLINIC since the same provides him an opportunity of free treatment. The details of research study at MAYO CLINIC have been placed on record. The respondent No. 2 is stated to have got an appointment to participate in such research study and is required to report at MAYO CLINIC in U. S. A. on 11th July, 2007. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3 is wife of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 seeks to take her along as his attendant. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS No. 2 and 3 are facing trial in a case FIR No. 89/2003 under sections 406/498a/34 IPC. Apart from them, Rajiv Tayal, husband and Rishi tayal brother-in-law of the petitioner/complainant are also named as accused. Rajiv Tayal, husband is based in USA and since he neither made himself available for investigation nor appeared before the learned trial court, he has been declared as a proclaimed offender and an open ended non-bailable warrant of arrest for initiation of Red Corner Notice proceedings has already been issued against him by the trial court. ( 5 ) BY an order dated 4th June, 2007 the court of learned Metropolitan magistrate concerned has granted permission to the respondents No. 2 and 3 for their visit to USA via Dubai which is being challenged by the petitioner/complainant by way of the present petition. ( 5 ) BY an order dated 4th June, 2007 the court of learned Metropolitan magistrate concerned has granted permission to the respondents No. 2 and 3 for their visit to USA via Dubai which is being challenged by the petitioner/complainant by way of the present petition. about:blank 21-04-2009 ( 6 ) THRUST of argument on behalf of petitioner is that since co-accused rajiv Tayal (husband) of petitioner has already been declared as a proclaimed offender and he being US based in the event of respondents No. 2 and 3 being allowed to visit that country it is most likely that they would also not return to India to make themselves available for trial. ( 7 ) IT is noticed that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 23rd July, 2007 of this Court. Such bail order does not contain any condition requiring the said respondents to seek court's permission to go abroad. On an earlier occasion when the respondent no. 2 was allowed to visit London, U. K. alongwith respondent No. 3 in connection with treatment of his knee ailment, he is not shown to have flouted any of the conditions imposed by the trial court. Both these respondents appear to have been attending the trial court on the dates of hearing and the trial is not shown to have suffered on account of their non availability. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 pointed out that the respondent No. 2 is in government service and is about to retire in August 2007. It was contended that apart from the fact that he is yet to receive his retiral benefits, he also owns immovable property, and, in the circumstances, the apprehension on the part of petitioner that in the event of being allowed to visit USA both the respondents would not return to India is totally unfounded. ( 8 ) KEEPING in view the rival submissions and past conduct of respondents no. 2 and 3 as also the fact that respondent no. 2 is seeking to avail of an opportunity for free medical treatment by being part of a research study at mayo CLINIC in USA, there appears no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is therefore dismissed.