Manoharlal Agicha v. The Union Of India And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 642 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3700 OF 2024 Manoharlal Agicha .... Applicant

Versus

The Union Of India And Anr.

.... Respondents ----- Mr. Rahul Agarwal a/w Adv. Jasmin Purani and Adv. Amar A. i/b Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Ayush Kedia a/w Mr. Shantanu Nakashe i/b H. S. Venegavkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State. ----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date:

2025.04.25 15:16:01 +0530 SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2025.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the Applicant is seeking relaxation of condition imposed by this Court (Coram: N. J. Jamadar, J.) by order dated 16th October, 2024.

2.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that this Court has imposed the condition Nos.(iii) & (viii) on the Applicant that the Applicant shall remain within the jurisdiction of the PMLA Court i.e. Greater Mumbai, and shall not leave the area without prior Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/3

permission of the PMLA Court and Applicant shall not try to establish communication with the co-accused or other person involved directly or indirectly in similar activities, through any mode of communication. Learned counsel further submitted that Applicant is business man and he has to leave the PMLA jurisdiction, and he is finding difficulty every time to take permission of the trial Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the Applicant and co-accused have business relations and he needs to contact the co-accused for business purpose and other purpose, but due to imposed conditions, he is finding difficulty, hence requested to allow the application. 3.

Learned SPP strongly objected to allow the application on the ground that offence under Section PMLA has been registered against the Applicant. The conditions imposed on the Applicant are proper, hence requested to reject the application. 4.

I have heard both learned counsel.

5.

The Applicant is attending the Court's dates regularly. The complaint is filed against the Applicant, yet trial has not been started. The Applicant is businessman and he needs to travel out side the Greater Mumbai and contact to the co-accused. Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/3

6.

Considering these facts, I pass following order:

ORDER

i. Application is allowed.

ii. Condition Nos.(iii) & (viii) imposed on the Applicant by this Court (Coram: N. J. Jamadar, J) vide order dated 16th October 2024, are hereby relaxed.

7.

In view of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the application is allowed and disposed of.

( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/3