ORDER : 1. This interlocutory application is filed to relax the condition which is imposed in order, dated 28.08.2020 passed by this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 3087 of 2020 i.e. “the petitioner shall not leave the limits of the country without prior permission of the trial court till the case is disposed of in the trial Court.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is arrayed as AO2 in Crime No. 04/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 of ACB, CIU, AP, Vijayawada and this Court has granted bail to the petitioner vide the aforementioned order. Further case of the petitioner is that at present he is President of Andhra Pradesh State Telugu Desam Party, Deputy Floor Leader of TDP in Legislative Assembly and is one among the prominent leaders of its legislature party, as such he has to attend various conferences conducted by the public throughout the globe on the problems faced by the State of Andhra Pradesh for its development. The petitioner is being invited to participate in the programs which are conducted throughout the globe, but due to the condition imposed in the bail order wherein the petitioner was directed not to leave the limits of the country without prior permission of the trial Court till disposal of the case, he is unable to participate in the said conferences and programs, which are conducted in various countries. Hence, prays to relax the said condition. 3. Respondent filed counter narrating various facts that took place pursuant to registration of crime and with regard to the non-filing of charge sheet/final report even after lapse of nearly one and half year. It is stated that investigation has not been completed as Crl. R.C. No. 288 of 2020 filed by them before learned Special Judge for ACB and SPE Cases, Vijayawada, with a prayer for obtaining sample signatures of the petitioner i.e. AO2 for the purpose of comparison of his signatures on the letter allegedly issued by the petitioner was not disposed of by the Court below, as such they could not file charge sheet and there is no negligence or default on the part of the respondent. 4. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Gayathri Reddy, learned standing counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-state. 5. 4. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Gayathri Reddy, learned standing counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-state. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though fifteen months have elapsed from 28.08.2020 due to onerous condition, petitioner is unable to move from the country. He submits that petitioner is law abiding citizen and he has been complying with all the conditions imposed by this Court, without fail. He submits that the case was registered on 10.06.2020, petitioner was arrested on 12.06.2020 and he was enlarged on bail on 28.08.2020 and even after lapse of nearly one and half year from the date of registration of the crime, prosecution failed to file charge sheet or final report till now. Learned counsel submits that in view of the failure on the part of the prosecution, the petitioner could not be penalized. In support his contention, learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in Bina K. Ramani vs. State, 2010 SCC Online Del. 452 wherein the Delhi High Court made the following observation when an identical issue cropped up: “It is really very strange that despite 3½ years having elapsed, the Investigating Agency is still not able to file a final report before the competent court. If on account of inapt attitude or the inapt handling of the Investigating Agency the final report is not filed within a reasonable time which this Court in any given case considers should not be more than a year or so, it does not mean that the accused who has been enlarged on bail with the condition of surrendering his passport or seeking permission from the Court to travel abroad can be made to suffer for such callous attitude of the Investigating Agency because in such a case it would tantamount to taking away the right to go abroad which is a part of personal liberty by a procedure which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be just, fair and reasonable. It has been held in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 that under Article 21 the procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable through which life or personal liberty is taken away. It has been held in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 that under Article 21 the procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable through which life or personal liberty is taken away. If this is permitted to be done, then it will be simply putting a premium on the inaptness or callous attitude of the Investigating Agency and also working to the detriment of the fundamental right of an under trial who may be enlarged on bail. The purpose of imposition of such a condition, as has already been stated hereinbefore, is to ensure that the accused must submit herself to the processes of law. The said purpose can be secured by modifying the said condition of surrendering the passport and obtaining the permission from the Court by requiring the accused to either furnish some title deed of an immovable property to the Court to ensure that she does not flee from the processes of law or by imposing some additional conditions. ............. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that the prayer of the petitioner for waiving the condition of surrendering her passport and obtaining the permission from the competent court in terms of the order dated 21st August, 2009 is working very onerous on the petitioner restricting her freedom of movement and her right to travel abroad under guaranteed Article 21 of the Constitution, especially in view of the fact that already 3½ years have elapsed and yet the Investigating Agency has not filed the final report.” 6. Learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court has imposed a condition directing the petitioner not to leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court till completion of trial. In view of the said condition, the petitioner is entitled to make an application before trial Court whenever he is required to leave the country instead of filing the present petition, as such this petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Perused the pleadings. 8. In view of the said condition, the petitioner is entitled to make an application before trial Court whenever he is required to leave the country instead of filing the present petition, as such this petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Perused the pleadings. 8. In Bina K. Ramini’s case (referred supra), the High Court of Delhi has dealt with identical issue and held that if on account of inapt attitude or the inapt handling of the Investigating Agency, final report is not filed within a reasonable time, which this Court in any given case considers should not be more than a year or so, accused who is enlarged on bail with this type of condition cannot be made to suffer. 9. In the present case, though admittedly the crime is registered on 10.06.2020, so far Police have not completed investigation and did not file charge sheet. The reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit for non-completion of investigation are not convincing. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the condition imposed in order, dated 28.08.2020 cannot be continued. 10. In view of the above, the condition imposed in order, dated 28.08.2020 passed by this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 3087 of 2020 i.e. the petitioner shall not leave the limits of the country without prior permission of the trial court till the case is disposed of in the trial Court is hereby relaxed. However, there shall be a direction to the petitioner, that if he wants to leave the country, the same shall be intimated to the Investigating Agency before leaving the country. 11. Accordingly this interlocutory application is disposed of.