Rajesh Srichand Hassanandani., v. The State Of Goa, Thr. The Public Prosecutor And 2 ORS.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2017 RAJESH SRICHAND HASSANANDANI., ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF GOA, THR. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Adv. M. Kukreja with Adv. Vahida Yelgar with for the Petitioner.

Mr. M. Amonkar, APP for Respondent nos.1 and 2. Adv. Karam Komi Reddy with Adv. Jitendra P. Supekar For Respondent no.3 Coram:- C. V. BHADANG, J.

Date:- 20th December 2017 P.C.:

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is nearing completion and the charge sheet is likely to be filed within a period of six weeks.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is holding a resident visa from U.A.E, Dubai and is carrying on business there. He submits that the petitioner is

WPCR/210/2017 required to visit Dubai for renewal of the lease agreement as well as for completing certain formalities about the licence under which he is carrying on business. It is also submitted that the petitioner intends to visit Dubai for meeting his wife and a minor child.

4. The learned counsel for the third respondent has pointed out that the petitioner has not made out any case for travel to Dubai. A this state the investigation is not complete. The learned counsel points out that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is dated 9/11/2017 and thus there is no urgency for the petitioner to visit Dubai. He also points out that the lease renewal notice is dated 9/7/2017 and is for the period from 16/10/2017 to 15/10/2018 and as such, it is contended that the petitioner has not made out any case at this stage seeking permission and the return of the passport for his travel to Dubai.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do find that the investigation is still incomplete. As submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is at a final stage and the charge sheet is likely to be filed within a period of six weeks. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that the petitioner can move afresh after the charge sheet is filed.

5. Considering the overall circumstances, I do not find that the

WPCR/210/2017 petition can be favourably entertained at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to renew the request after a period of six weeks or after filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

ap/-