Vinay Vivek Aranha v. Union Of India And ANR

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1176 OF 2025 Vinay Vivek Aranha .. Applicant

Versus

Union Of India and Anr.

.. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Mithilesh Mishra, Advocate for Applicant.  Mr. Aayush Kedia, Advocate i/by Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, SPP for Respondent No.1.

 Mr. Rushikesh M. Pethe, APP for Respondent No.2. ...................

CORAM

: MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : APRIL 08, 2025 P.C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Kedia, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Pethe, learned APP for Respondent No.2.

2.

At the outset, Mr. Mishra would persuade the Court to allow Applicant to carry out amendment in prayer clause in the Application in paragraph No.12 and incorporate the jurisdiction of 'States of Maharashtra and Goa' alongwith Mumbai and Pune regions stated therein. The said amendment is permitted to be carried out forthwith. The same is carried out in presence of Court. Re-verification stands dispensed with.

3.

Applicant seeks indulgence of the Court for modification of

condition [3] appearing in paragraph No.31 of the bail order dated 12.03.2025 passed by this Court. The subject condition reads thus:- "3] The applicant shall remain within the jurisdiction of PMLA Court i.e. Greater Mumbai and shall not leave the area without prior permission of PMLA Court."

4.

Mr. Mishra would submit that Applicant is originally resident of Pune and has deep roots in Pune City, as also the predicate offence is registered and prosecuted in Pune City. That apart he would submit that Applicant is required to attend litigation all over Maharashtra and in the State of Goa. He would therefore persuade the Court to consider the grounds stated in the Application in paragraph No.3 onwards and persuade the Court for relaxation of the aforesaid condition No. [3] to the extent possible and as deemed fit by the Court so as to not require the Applicant to repeatedly approach the Trial Court every now and then when the Applicant is required to travel out of Mumbai as it is a very onerous condition.

5.

Mr. Kedia, learned Advocate appearing for prosecution would submit that if Court is inclined to consider the Application then appropriate stringent conditions be imposed so that prosecution is in the know-how and knowledge of the movement of Applicant as also he does not get a free-hand to transgress the bail order conditions passed by this Court since he has already been enlarged on bail. He would submit that appropriate directions be issued to the Applicant to furnish

not only all details of his addresses, as also the place where he intends to travel beyond Greater Mumbai as and when he leaves Mumbai as also details of litigation that he intends to attend in order to allow the prosecution to keep a tab on the Applicant.

6.

The concerns and submissions made by Mr. Kedia prima facie are appropriate and undoubtedly will be considered by Court. In view of the above considering the fact that boundaries of Greater Mumbai has become fragile in today's economic and commercial world, the said condition is prima facie onerous. No doubt Applicant is entitled to leave Mumbai with permission of the Court but still obtaining permission of the Court at short notice sometimes becomes onerous. In that view of the matter condition No.[3] being onerous stands deleted.

7.

However, in place of condition No.[3], the following condition shall stand substituted.

"[3] Applicant is permitted to leave jurisdiction of Greater Mumbai but as and when he shall do so he is directed to place all such relevant details about his travel, return and stay details which he would be desirous to attend either in the State of Maharashtra or Goa with the prosecution in advance. In the event if Applicant is required to leave in an exigency or urgency the details shall be forwarded to the

prosecution within a period of two days after Applicant leaves Greater Mumbai so that prosecution is in know-how about the whereabouts of the Applicant."

8.

This order shall be read alongwith order dated 12.03.2025. 9.

Interim Application is disposed in the above terms. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date:

2025.04.09 12:48:32 +0530 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT