JUDGMENT :

S.S. Shinde, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties matter is heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

2. This petition takes an exception to the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court at Greater Bombay in Special (POCSO)Case No. 592 of 2018 in C.R. No. 169 of 2016, registered at Colaba Police Station by which order the Special Court allowed the applications below Exh. 27 and Exh. 28 filed by the original accused i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of the present Writ Petition can in brief stated as under:

The offence has been registered against the original accused i.e. Respondent No.2 herein under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") for allegedly sexually harassing the victim girls aged 14 and 15 years. The Petitioner herein filed FIR against Respondent No.2 who is her brother in law and a citizen of U.S. under Sections 354, 354A, 509 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.2/Accused has outraged the modesty of her two minor daughters who were 14 and 15 years old. The original Accused i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein filed an Application below Exh. 27 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay seeking permission to travel his home country U.S. and Application below Exh. 28 for relaxation of bail conditions (i) Accused shall deposit his over-seas citizen card and passport, (ii) accused shall attend concerned police station on first Saturday of every month till completion of the Trial. As indicated herein above the said applications have been allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, and the Applicant/Respondent No.2 has been allowed to leave country for ten months from 01/09/2019 to 30/06/2020 on depositing cash security of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Court. It is also directed to return the overseas citizen card and passport to the applicant/Respondent No.2 forthwith. It is the said order which is challenged by the Petitioner by way of this Writ Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their able assistance, perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto and affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No.2. I have also perused the reasons assigned by the Special Court in the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that permitting the accused to travel abroad for 10 months by the impugned order is unreasonable and unwarranted. It is submitted that the accused has not produced any cogent and substantial piece of evidence to corroborate the ground cited in the application for travel. It is also submitted that if the accused is permitted to travel abroad, the accused may not return to India to attend the trial and there is every possibility of accused to be absconding. He submits that the offence has been registered in the year 2016 and so far trial is not commenced. He also submits that though the charge sheet has been filed, the learned Special Judge has not even framed the charge and kept the matter after 10 months for framing charges. The learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore prays that the Petition deserves consideration.

6. Respondent No.2/Accused has filed an affidavit in reply dated 06/09/2019 to this Writ Petition. It is stated in the said affidavit that Respondent No.2 has been visiting India quite often, and since October 2018 he is in India. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it is stated that when the FIR under POCSO was lodged, Respondent No.2 was very much in India and continued to stay here until execution of deed of settlement. He had visited the Colaba Police Station on multiple occasions and cooperated with the investigation. It is also stated that the police has also recorded his statement and have taken all the relevant documents on their file which he had produced. It is also stated in the said affidavit that,