Permission to travel abroad during criminal trial allowed subject to bonds, sureties, passport release, and return undertaking.

Permission to travel abroad was granted during pendency of criminal cases where the petitioners showed business commitments, had earlier complied with similar leave, and had returned to re-deposit their passports. The HC balanced the risk of absconding against their past conduct and held that the trial could continue during their short absence, with personal attendance dispensable on appropriate dates. Release of passports and permission to go abroad were allowed subject to personal bonds, sureties, an undertaking to return, and exemption from personal appearance while abroad.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to release of their passports and permission to go abroad during the pendency of the criminal cases, subject to suitable safeguards.

Analysis: The petitioners had business commitments abroad and had earlier gone abroad with permission of the Court, returned, and re-deposited their passports. The Court noted that the trial could continue during their short absence and that their personal presence could be dispensed with on material dates in appropriate cases where business exigencies justified such relief. The apprehension of absconding was balanced against the earlier conduct of the petitioners and the availability of conditions to secure their return.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to permission to go abroad and to release of their passports, subject to execution of personal bonds, furnishing of sureties, undertaking to return, and exemption from personal appearance during their absence.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were granted with protective conditions ensuring the petitioners' return and continued availability for trial.

---