- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2011, passed by the learned Special Judge (Printing and Stationery) and Additional Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby his application for early hearing has been dismissed.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 25.01.2011, his wife, Smt. Vimla Meena, who is working as a Distributor in Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., has been invited to Zurich, Switzerland to attend a business seminar, which would be held from 20th May, 2011 till 25th May, 2011. According to the invitation, even the petitioner has also been invited to attend the said seminar. The petitioner has failed to give any concrete details of the criminal case in which he is involved; he has even failed to inform this Court about the conditions imposed by the trial court while granting him the benefit of bail. On 15.02.2011 the petitioner moved an application seeking permission of the court to go abroad and for returning the passport. However, vide order dated 15.02.2011, the learned trial court adjourned the matter till 21st April, 2011. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for early hearing. However, vide order dated 01.03.2011, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it is a fundamental right of the petitioner to travel abroad. Moreover, he needs to accompany his wife. Furthermore, there is no reason given by the learned trial court for giving such a long date as 21st April, 2011. Lastly, in case a early hearing is not done, then the petitioner would not be able to accompany his wife. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. Of course, it is true that the freedom of moment happens to be a fundamental right. However, no fundamental right is an absolute one. The fundamental right can be controlled by a procedure established by law. Since the petitioner happens to be involved in a criminal case, and this Court is informed that it is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial court is certainly justified in placing certain conditions upon the petitioner. Apparently, while granting the benefit of bail one of the conditions imposed by the trial court is that the petitioner cannot leave the country without prior permission of the court. Moreover, a person cannot claim that he has a fundamental right to accompany his wife, in case she were to go abroad. There is no requirement in law that a woman cannot travel abroad in case she is not accompanied by his husband. Further, there is no such requirement in law that a husband must accompany his wife, in case she were to travel abroad. Merely because an invitation has been extended to the petitioner to travel to Zurich, Switzerland, and merely because it happens to be ?one in a lifetime opportunity? according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mere invitation does not fortify the petitioner's right to travel abroad. According to the order dated 15.02.2011, a reason has been given for adjourning the case till 21st April, 2011. According to the learned trial court, a permission has been sought from this High Court to transfer the case to another court. The said permission is yet to be given and yet to be received by the trial court.
(3.) CONSIDERING the fact that the petitioner has to reach Zurich, Switzerland on 20th May, 2011, even if the case were to be listed on 21st April, 2011, he certainly has sufficient time to seek the visa from the SWISS Embassy. Lastly, it is always the discretion of the trial court to decide its calender. After all, the trial courts are over-burdened with large number of litigation. It is not for this Court, in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with the calender of the trial court. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. ;