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. 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