Satling Gangadhar Ingole v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.328 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1054 OF 2017 Satling Gangadhar Ingole ....Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others.

.... Respondents ----- Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Counsel for Respondent No.2-CBI. Mr. S.K. Halwasia, Advocate a/w. M. M. Nasiri, Ashish S. Chavan, for Respondent No.3.

----- CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2023 P.C. :

1.

The applicant was convicted by the Special Judge, Solapur in Special Case No.11/2011 vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2017. He was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was sentenced to suffer SI for three years besides imposition of fine. 2.

The applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1054/2017, which is admitted and is pending before this Deshmane(PS)

: 2 :

Court. The applicant had preferred an application vide Criminal Application No.1726/2017 in that appeal for suspension of sentence and his release on bail. That application was allowed vide order dated 24.1.2018. More than five years since his conviction have passed.

3.

The applicant now wants to travel abroad. He has stated in his application that his son is working as Software Engineer Specialist in a company at Atlanta, USA. 4.

This application is for two prayers: one prayer is for permission to travel to United States of America; and the other prayer is for granting permission for issuance of passport. 5.

Heard Shri Vijay Killedar, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP for the respondent No.1-State, Shri Kuldeep Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No.2-CBI and Shri S.K. Halwasia, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

6.

Learned counsel Shri Halwasia fairly submitted that more than five years have passed and, therefore, the impediment under Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act will not come in the way of the applicant.

: 3 :

7.

Learned Counsel Shri Patil for the respondent No.2 does not have objection for the applicant's travel abroad, however, he submits that the applicant be directed to furnish the details of his travel.

8.

Considering these submissions, the application can be allowed in the following terms :

:: O R D E R ::

i.

The applicant is permitted to travel to United States of America for a reasonable period.

ii.

The applicant is permitted to apply for the passport. For that purpose, specific permission is granted. iii.

The applicant shall inform the investigating agency about his plans to travel to United State of America and shall give full itinerary including his prospective stay and contact numbers etc. to the investigating officer well in advance.

iv.

With these directions, the application is disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)