Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for parties. The petitioner who was set at liberty on furnishing bail bonds was not present himself on March 3, 1993, the date fixed by the trial Court and moved an application for exemption from personal attendance on the ground that the petitioner has gone abroad. The trial Court rejected the application holding that the petitioner has left the territory of India without seeking permission from the Court and in that he has misued liberty.
(2.) Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Salim v. State, 1992 Cr LR 807 for the purpose that on the technics ground, the petitioner could not seek prior permission of the Court, left India for join his job and prayed that in the present case, the trial Court should not have rejected the application of the petitioner exempting his personal attendance.;