PIYUSH VERMA Versus STATE OF HP CRMP-3597 of 2026 in CRMPM-2190 of 2024 01.09.2026 Present: Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/petitioner to permit him to visit Dubai w.e.f 01.09.2026 to 30.09.2026 by a private chartered plane in connection with his business. During his visit to Dubai, his place of stay would be the house of his brother, Flat No. 201, Building C-402, Shabiya 10, Mussafah, Abu Dhabi, UAE. It has been averred in the application that since the petitioner is engaged in the business of civil aviation, he is required to travel abroad. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report issued under the signatures of SHO Police Station West, District Shimla, wherein afore prayer made on behalf of the applicant has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigating agency, as a result thereof, investigation could not be completed till date. It has been further averred in the reply that applicant/petitioner has not furnished the relevant information and documents with regard to Winborne Air Private Limited, a company owned by him. Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned counsel representing the applicant/petitioner, states that the applicant/petitioner has been regularly joining the investigation as and when called upon by the investigating agency and all the relevant information and documents in his possession have already been handed over to the investigating agency, but yet with a view to harass the applicant/petitioner, neither the investigation is being concluded nor the challan is being filed before the competent Court of law. He states that whenever the petitioner has gone abroad pursuant to the permissions granted by this Court, he has duly complied with the conditions imposed by this Court and on each occasion, has made himself available for investigation after his return from abroad and as such, there appears to be no justification for denying permission to the applicant/petitioner to travel abroad. It is apparent from previous orders passed by this Court that petitioner has been visiting Dubai and other foreign destinations and every time, he has reported back well in time and also made himself available for investigation. No adverse report has been placed on record to show that during his visits to Dubai or other destination, applicant/petitioner indulged in any alleged activity or attempted to tamper with prosecution evidence. In view of above, present application is allowed and applicant/petitioner is permitted to visit Dubai w.e.f 01.09.2026 to 30.09.2026 in connection with his business, but permission, as has been granted hereinabove, shall be subject to furnishing flight details with the investigating Officer and surety bonds to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- before Deputy Registrar (Judicial)/learned trial Court with an undertaking to return back in any eventuality by 01.10.2026. Needless to say, applicant/ petitioner shall report to the Investigating Agency within three days of his return at the concerned police station, failing which investigating agency would be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Application stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 01, 2026 (Sunil)