Dharmesh Hasmukh Doshi v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.492 OF 2022 Dharmesh Hasmukh Doshi ...Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Another

...Respondents

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Mr. Subodh Desai a/w. Mr. Prashant Pawar and Mr. Nagesh K., for the Applicant.

Ms. Amita Kuttikrishnan, for Respondent No. 2 Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, APP for the State.

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2022.05.13 15:17:13 +0530 CORAM :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

MAY 13, 2022 (VACATION COURT) P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

2.

This application is preferred seeking permission to travel to London, UK and other countries.

3.

The applicant is arraigned as an accused in CBI Special Case No. 53 of 2006 for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4.

The Court is informed that the proceedings in CBI Special Case No. 53 of 2006 are stayed by the orders of this Court. 5.

By an order dated 3rd January, 2022 the learned Special Jude had permitted the applicant to travel abroad during the period from ...1

8th January, 2022 to 8th May, 2022, subject to certain conditions. The applicant preferred another application (Exhibit 852) seeking permission to travel abroad from 9th May, 2022 to 9th November, 2022. It was, inter alia, asserted that the presence of the applicant in U.K was necessary as on 27th May, 2022 a Gala Dinner in the presence of High Commissioner at U.K was organized. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge declined the prayer of the applicant and rejected the application.

6.

The material on record indicates that the applicant had been granted permission to travel abroad on multiple occasions. The applicant returned to India on 4th April, 2022 and sought permission for further period. The reason ascribed by the applicant for traveling abroad appears to be bonafide and relates to business commitment.

7.

Ms. Amita Kuttikrushnan, the learned counsel for respondent NO. 2 resisted the application on the ground that the applicant has not furnished detail itinerary.

8.

The learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to furnish a detail itinerary, on an affidavit before, the learned Special Judge today itself.

9.

Subject to furnishing the detail itinerary, the applicant is permitted to travel abroad from 14th May, 2022 to 12th June, 2022 ...2

on the terms and conditions, as imposed by the learned Special Judge in the order dated 3rd January, 2022.

10.

Application stands disposed.

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.) ...3