Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2014 DIGILAW 229 (SC)

PITAM PRADHAN v. STATE OF A. P.

2014-02-26

A.K.SIKRI, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR

body2014
ORDER Being extra cautious, we had issued notice to the wife, since she is now claiming that there has been no settlement. She is also now claiming that the documents are not being duly supplied to her. Service has been duly effected on the wife. She has not appeared to respond to the notice. The petitioner is employed with Ericsson India in the capacity of Senior Solution Integrator. In the course of his duties, the petitioner is required to travel abroad at frequent intervals. It has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the petitioner is permitted to travel abroad, he is likely to loose his job. 2. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer will permit the petitioner to travel abroad to attend to the duties and impose any other suitable condition to secure the attendance of the petitioner either for the purpose of investigation or trial, if any, at a later stage. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.