Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 700 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-03-06

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. —Applicant has moved this miscellaneous application seeking extension of time to stay abroad as granted by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2016. It is contended that counsel for the applicant has been abiding to the terms and conditions imposed by Court and has been appearing before the Trial Court. 2. It is contended that the appointment of the present applicant has been extended till 12.02.2019 and since his original documents are with Maasai Mara University, Kenya. He be permitted to stay abroad till 12.02.2019. Counsel undertakes that the petitioner would continue to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. 3. Counsel appearing for the complainant who has received a copy has opposed the prayer, his contention is that initially when the petitioner applied for permission he specifically mentioned in the application that he will not seek further time and since now the time has expired so there is no reason for extending the time. It is contended that the petitioner is now leaving the country on 12.03.2017, whereas the petitioner has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is scheduled for 15.03.2017. It is contended that the urgency as stated in the main application is not subsisting. 4. I have considered the contentions. This Court''s order dated 21.11.2016 permitted the petitioner to live abroad with a further direction to him to furnish a fixed deposit to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and to furnish security of two senior officers working with the Central Government. The petitioner herein gave the security and fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and thereafter, he has appeared before the criminal court as and when he was required. The petitioner is still willing to appear on all dates fixed by the Court. 5. In view of the same keeping the contention of the petitioner into account and also the fact that petitioner has not breached any of the orders of this Court. I deem it proper to allow the application. The fixed deposit furnished by the petitioner, would remain with the court. The petitioner would further furnish security of two senior officers working with the Central Government. On furnishing of the same the court would permit the petitioner to leave the country till 12.02.2019 with the further condition that he will appear on all dates fixed by the Court. 6. The fixed deposit furnished by the petitioner, would remain with the court. The petitioner would further furnish security of two senior officers working with the Central Government. On furnishing of the same the court would permit the petitioner to leave the country till 12.02.2019 with the further condition that he will appear on all dates fixed by the Court. 6. Accordingly the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed.