JUDGMENT : - Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral). Challenge herein is to the order passed on 31.3.2014 (Annexure P-1) by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (V), Shimla declining thereby the permission sought by the accused-petitioner to leave India for Nigeria in connection with official duties. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused in a case registered under Section 498-A IPC, at the instance of his daughter-in-law Ms. Sunanda Mohan Sharma. The other accused in the case are Abhinav Sharma, husband of the complainant and Smt. Shobha Sharma, her mother released on bail vide order dated 31.8.2013 Annexure P-7 (Colly.), subject to certain terms and conditions, including that, he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. 3. It is seen that the accused petitioner, after his superannuation, has been re-employed in Balasore Alloys Limited, 71, Park Street “Park Plaza” Kolkatta, as Project Director. In connection with his job, he is required to visit Nigeria. Initially, his trip to Nigeria was scheduled w.e.f. 15th March 2014 to 15th April, 2014 and subsequently w.e.f. 15th May, 2014 to 15th June, 2014; however, for want of permission, it could not be materialized. As per the communication dated 20th May, 2014 produced today by learned counsel, the Company has agreed to re-schedule his visit to Nigeria intone with the permission granted by the Court. 4. The permission as sought by filing application before learned Additional Sessions Judge was declined vide order dated 25th November, 2013, Annexure P-7 (Colly.) on the ground that after filing of the challan in the case, it is now the Magistrate concerned incharge of the case and he may approach for obtaining such permission by filing appropriate application in the trial Court, which has been dismissed vide impugned order with the following observations: “It is clear that the applicant is alleged to be involved in this case along with his wife and son. It is further clear that the case is still under investigation and main accused has not joined investigation as is already in the foreign country. The applicant intends to go Nigeria abroad to join some job with M/s Phoenix Steel Mills Ltd. and one document i.e. offer of appointment is placed on record. It is not clear from the said document that whether this offer has been accepted or not. The applicant intends to go Nigeria abroad to join some job with M/s Phoenix Steel Mills Ltd. and one document i.e. offer of appointment is placed on record. It is not clear from the said document that whether this offer has been accepted or not. Moreover, the case is under investigation and applicant is stated to be 58 years old and his son already serving as engineer with Elegant Marine services, therefore, this court is of the view that till investigation is not completed, it is not proper to permit the applicant to go to abroad to join services. Reason being that if he is permitted to go to abroad then it can cause hindrance in the further investigation of the case. Moreover, it is not the case of the applicant that he intends to go to abroad for one week or 15 days or for month. Rather he intend to go there to join service and it is not known that for what period he will remain there. Therefore, in such conditions the permission cannot be granted. The application is ordered to be rejected. It registration and needful.” 5. True it is that the speedy and fair trial is the mandate of the Constitution, however, at the same time freedom and liberty of an accused, who is yet to be tried and held guilty, also needs to be balanced. The accused petitioner in the given facts and circumstances is not shifting to Nigeria permanently, however, for fixed tenure of few days duration or say about a month. He is not the only accused in the case because his son Abhinav Sharma and his wife Shobha Sharma are co-accused with him. Otherwise also, while granting permission as sought, the movement of the petitioner can be restricted by imposing suitable conditions upon him. 6. It is worth to mention here that his visit to abroad is necessitated by his job requirement. The above are few of the factors, which weigh in the mind of this Court while considering the prayer of the accused-petitioner for being permitted to leave India in relaxation of the conditions imposed in the order, whereby he has been granted bail. 7. The above are few of the factors, which weigh in the mind of this Court while considering the prayer of the accused-petitioner for being permitted to leave India in relaxation of the conditions imposed in the order, whereby he has been granted bail. 7. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Hemant Setya versus State, 2008(1) JCC 90, a case with visit abroad in connection with his business trip during the pendency of the trial against him, of course on the conditions imposed upon him. 8. Therefore, having regard to the given facts and circumstances and the entire material, available on record, I am of the view that the impugned order is not legally sustainable; the same therefore, is quashed and set aside. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Accused-petitioner Chander Bhan Sharma is permitted to leave India, subject to his furnishing additional personal and surety bonds to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-each to the satisfaction of learned trial Magistrate and also submitting itinerary of his visit to Nigeria in the trial Court and undertaking that on all dates when his presence is essentially required in the trial Court in connection with the proceedings in the trial, he shall remain present in person. Also that on other dates he will attend the trial Court and in the event of being prevented from doing so on account of any unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, may seek exemption from appearance by filing an appropriate application, which learned trial Magistrate shall consider and dispose of, in accordance with law. The failure on whatsoever, shall entail in cancellation of the liberty of bail granted to him. 9. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.