ORDER : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Petitioner accused Manoj Kumar Sharma has preferred this criminal writ petition with the prayer to modify the order dated 24-4-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan passed in Cr. Revision No. 47/2015 so as to remove the rider of obtaining permission from the learned trial court for each visit to abroad and come back to India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Rajendra K. Salecha submits that the petitioner accused is an engineering graduate and also MBA from the University of Hull, England having a status of NRI since last 22 years. The petitioner is having trade licence in the name of Ocean Building Maintenance (L.L.C.) from the Government of Dubai and is working at Dubai. The licence is going to expire on 11-3-2016. Therefore, his presence at Dubai is necessary. He submits that a letter dated 18-12-2013 is also received from his sponsor informing that he is required in Dubai full time for all the employees working in the company, especially for their salaries, timely renewal and cancellations of their visas in Labour and Immigration Office to avoid any delay fines and also for renewal of company Trade Licence. He submits that the petitioner came from Dubai and landed at Jaipur Airport and obtained red channel having 70 Gold Biscuit (weighing 8164.80 gms.), which was permissible by Government notification. He submits that a false case was registered against the petitioner u/s 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which the petitioner applied for compounding his pending matter before the Chief Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi and it is expected that same may be compounded shortly. He submits that appeal against the adjudication proceedings is also pending. Therefore, the appeal and trial shall take its own time and if the petitioner is not permitted to go UAE, then his whole business will be ruined as well as his family members consisting wife and three children will also be remain unattended. Therefore, the petitioner wants to visit Dubai for his business as well as to look after his wife and children. Therefore, the petitioner wants to visit Dubai for his business as well as to look after his wife and children. He submits that vide impugned order dated 24-4-2015, the revisional court quashed and set aside the order dated 10-3-2015 passed by the learned trial court but instead of allowing the application impugned, he remanded the matter back with certain directions and one of the direction that each and every time, he has to seek permission from the learned Magistrate, which is very difficult as it takes considerable time and the petitioner has to visit Dubai. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon on the case of Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali - (2007) 1 SCC 673 , Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan - 2014 (4) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1746, Chitrak Satishbai Shah v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 9837/2014, decided on 24-7-2014 by Gujarat High Court and Patel Simaben Arvindbhai v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 16815/2015, decided on 11-9-2015 by Gujarat High Court. 4. Learned standing counsel Shri Anil Mehta appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that it is true that appeal is pending against adjudication order but the presence of the petitioner is required before the learned trial court during trial court of the case. He submits that the impugned order dated 24-4-2015 was not challenged by the Union of India it is challenged only by the petitioner accused. He submits that the trial court may be directed to accord permission to the petitioner within two days from today for reasonable time and subsequent permission may be accorded within five days after moving such application by the petitioner before the learned trial court so that his business and looking after his family, may not be effected. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels and perused the available record. 6. In the matter of Salman (supra), State of Rajasthan, granted permission to go abroad to the accused Salman but U.K. Government rejected the visa on account of conviction order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court Principal Seat at Jodhpur suspended the order of conviction and allowed to proceed abroad. 6. In the matter of Salman (supra), State of Rajasthan, granted permission to go abroad to the accused Salman but U.K. Government rejected the visa on account of conviction order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court Principal Seat at Jodhpur suspended the order of conviction and allowed to proceed abroad. Similarly, in the case of Chitrak Satishbai Shah (supra), the learned Single Bench of Gujarat High Court considering the facts that the accused petitioner is NRI, it was ordered that "The applicant will be under an obligation to submit a written intimation to the Investigating Officer along with the itinerary at least one week before his departure, and on return to India, within one week, he shall report back in writing to the Investigating Officer about his return to India. Similarly, condition No. 5(d) is also modified to the effect that in the event the applicant is to leave the limits of State of Gujarat, and moving within the country, the same should be done with a written intimation to the Investigating Officer at least three days in advanced." Therefore, the permission was accorded to the accused only on condition to inform the Investigating Officer to go abroad. 7. In the matter of Patel Simaben Arvindbhai (supra), the learned Single Bench of the Gujarat High Court while allowing the anticipatory bail of the accused, a condition was imposed that "the applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court, and passport if any, shall be deposited with the trial Court", was deleted and the trial court was ordered to hand over the passport to the applicant at the earliest. 8. In the case in hand, since the petitioner is having good business at UAE and his wife and family are also residing there if permission will not be given to him to visit UAE, then his business may be adversely effcted and his family may also suffered therefore, this petition deserves acceptance. 9. 8. In the case in hand, since the petitioner is having good business at UAE and his wife and family are also residing there if permission will not be given to him to visit UAE, then his business may be adversely effcted and his family may also suffered therefore, this petition deserves acceptance. 9. In view of it, this criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted which is hereby allowed and the learned trial court is directed to decide the application of the petitioner pending before it since 18-1-2016 within two days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and accord him permission and in future, if he wants to go abroad after informing the court, he may be allowed to go abroad whenever necessity arises so that his business may not be affected and he may also take care of his family subject to the condition that trial, before the trial court may not be effected. Petition allowed.