Ganjanaboyena Poorna Chandra Rao v. State Of Maharashtra

Arun Sankpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6397 OF 2025 Ganjanaboyena Poorna Chandra Rao ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashra

...Respondent

Mr. Abid Mulani, with Ashish Agarkar and Harshada Parbhane, for the Petitioner.

Mr. P. P. Malshe, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. R. R. Adgare, API, Sinhgad Road Police Station, Pune City.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

12th DECEMBER 2025 ORAL ORDER:

1.

Heard Mr. Mulani, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr Malshe, the learned APP for the Respondent-State. 2.

The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, was persuaded to reject the Application preferred by the Petitioner seeking permission to travel to ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Dubai (UAE) and Iran for business purpose.

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.12.12 20:00:58 +0530 3.

The Petitioner is arraigned in CR No. 184 of 2025 registered with Sinhagad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Petitioner was 1/4

directed to be released on pre-arrest bail by an order dated 11th June 2025.

4.

The learned Sessions Judge was persuaded to reject the Application as the investigation was still underway and the statement of four witnesses were yet to be recorded. Secondly, the Petitioner had not furnished the details of the destinations where the Petitioner proposed to visit. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that permission to travel abroad, at that stage, may jeopardize effective investigation. 5.

The Petitioner has filed an Additional Affidavit. The Petitioner has furnished the details of the proposed travel. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of the said Affidavit read as under:

"3.

I state that, I am required to travel Teheran at Iran for business meetings. The travel is essential and bonafide and is not intended to delay or obstruct the ongoing Investigation.

4.

I submit the detailed itinerary of the proposed travel as under:

a. Date of departure: 14th December 2025.

b. Departure Airport: Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad.

c. Arrival Airport: Tehran, Imam Khomeini International Airport (IKA).

d. Scheduled arrived Date and Time: 14th December 2025.

2/4

5.

I submit the detailed address of the accommodation during my stay which is as under: "1105, Tower B. ASP Towers, Teheran, Iran".

6.

I will be using the same telephonic number for contacts which is +91 9849150455 and my email address is chandra007hyd@gmail.com.

7.

I hereby submit the details of return travel as under;

a. Date of Return: 10th January 2026 or as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court.

b.

Arrival Airport: Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad.

8.

I hereby undertake that, I shall strictly adhere to the above itinerary and shall not extend my stay without the permission of this Hon'ble Court."

6.

The Court finds that the Petitioner has been arraigned for the offences which are triable by the Magistrate. As sufficient time has been lapsed since the date of the release of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail, the denial of permission to travel abroad on the ground that statements of witnesses were yet to be recorded, does not seem justifiable. It appears that the Petitioner has roots in society so as to bring him back, in the event the Petitioner is permitted to travel abroad. 7.

In view of the afore-extracted assertions in the Affidavit, which are accepted as undertaking to this Court, the Petitioner is permitted to 3/4

travel abroad, subject to the following conditions: (i) The Petitioner is permitted to travel to Iran, from 14th December 2025 to 10th January 2026, subject to depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by way of security.

(ii) The Petitioner will be entitled to refund of the security deposit after he returns to India and reports to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(iii) Afore-extracted assertions in the Affidavit of the Petitioner are accepted as undertakings to this Court, and any breach thereof would entail action for contempt of Court, in addition to other actions as permissible in law.

8.

Petition disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4