Prasanth Sivandan v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

38-IA-3348-2025-IN-WP-3654-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3348 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3654 OF 2025 by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date:

2025.10.09 11:11:23 +0530 SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Prasanth Sivanandan ...Applicant In the matter between:- Prasanth Sivanandan

...Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

***** Mr.Ditendra Mishra:- Advocate for Applicant/Petitioner.

Mr.H.J.Dedhia:- APP for Respondent No.1-State.

Ms.Kareena C.Talreja a/w Mr.Ravi Rattesar:- Advocates for Respondent No.2.

*****

CORAM

:

S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE :

1st OCTOBER 2025 P. C. :- 1.

Heard learned Advocate Shri.Mishra for the Applicant/Accused, learned APP and learned Advocate for the First-Informant. 2.

The prayer which is made in this Application is for grant of permission to visit Dubai for 30 days for extension of VISA. There is alternate prayer to modify the judgment dated 6th August 2025. There is a strong opposition on behalf of the Respondents. The Respondent Satish Sangar 1/2

38-IA-3348-2025-IN-WP-3654-2025.doc No.2 has also filed certain documents along with the list. It is taken on record and marked as Annexure-X. It is true as per the order dated 6th August 2025, permission to travel abroad and return of passport is rejected. In that Writ Petition, there was a challenge to the refusal order passed by the trial Magistrate.

3.

Even though the Applicant has filed an Affidavit showing willingness to offer certain securities, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 pointed out several lacunae in those securities, e.g. possession of premises is not received and the consent of joint owner is not there. So I am unable to accept both the request. I have no alternative but to reject the prayer.

4.

With these observations, the Application stands rejected. [S. M. MODAK, J.] Satish Sangar 2/2