((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.117 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1796 OF 2008 Jatin R. Mehta Applicant versus Central Bureau of Investigation/ ACU-II. Respondent A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Counsel i/by P.M.Havnur for applicant. H.V.Mehta for respondent no.1. S.V.Gajre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th May 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant. By the judgement and order dated 10th September 2009 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1796 of 2008 this Court permitted the petitioner to travel abroad by setting aside the order dated 07th August 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge. The petitioner intended to travel to various places including Dubai, Singapore and Bahamas. The order dated 10th September 2008 discloses that this Court found that the objection of the ((-2-)) investigating agency to the petitioner visiting Singapore and Bahamas was reasonable. A specific observation to that effect has been made in paragraph 12 of the order dated 10th September 2000 in Writ Petition No.1796 of 2008. In the said petition an undertaking has been filed by the petitioner that he will not visit Singapore and Bahamas. 2. In the present application filed in the disposed of writ petition, the prayer is for modification of the order dated 10th September 2008 by allowing the applicant to visit Singapore between 08th May 2009 and 15th May 2009. Reliance has been placed on a letter dated 16th April 2009 by which the applicant was invited to participate in a conference at Singapore. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the communication dated 24th September 2008 issued by the Director of Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai ("Director of IIT" for short) to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI" for short). He pointed out that the said letter indicates that as far ((-3-)) as main accused professor D.S.Mishra is concerned, his employer I.I.T. has put no restrictions on him and he is permitted to undertake various projects. He also invited my attention to the undertaking dated 28th April 2009 annexed to the rejoinder of the application in which the applicant has stated that he will not influence any witness or will not tamper with any evidence. He has stated that he does not wish to delay the investigation. He, therefore, submitted that the undertaking dated 28th April 2009 sufficiently protects the investigating agency. Lastly, he submitted that the applicant be permitted to visit Singapore atleast for a day to enable him to attend his personal meeting. 4. There is a reply filed by the CBI opposing the prayer by pointing out that on 9th April 2009, the learned Special Judge, Mumbai issued letter of Rogatories to the competent authorities in the Common Wealth of Bahamas, United States of America and Republic of Singapore for collecting evidence at the respective places. 5. I have considered the submissions. When ((-4-)) Criminal Writ Petition No.1796 of 2008 was placed before this Court, serious objection was raised by the CBI for permitting the applicant to visit Singapore and Bahamas. While passing an order dated 10th September 2008, this Court observed that the objection of the CBI was reasonable. Infact, the present applicant gave an undertaking to this Court that he will not visit Singapore and Bahamas. The order of this Court was not challenged by the applicant and infact the applicant acted upon the said order. 6. Reliance has been placed by the applicant on the letter dated 24th September 2008 tendered by the Director of I.I.T., Mumbai to the Director of C.B.I.. Reliance on the said letter will not help the applicant as professor D.S.Mishra who is stated to be the main accused has not been permitted to travel to Singapore. The objection of the CBI to the applicant visiting Singapore was upheld by order dated 10th September 2008 on the ground that the investigation relating to the offence was in progress. There is no change brought about in the situation prevailing on 10th September 2008. On the contrary, there is one more circumstance which requires denial of ((-5-)) permission to the applicant to travel Singapore. In the affidavit of CBI it is stated that as recently as on 09th April 2009 the learned Special Judge has passed an order issuing letter of Rogatories to the competent authorities in the Common Wealth of Bahamas, United States and the Republic of Singapore for collecting evidence at the respective places. The undertaking dated 20th April 2009 annexed to the rejoinder of the applicant refers to the order dated 09th April 2009. Thus, not only that no change is brought about in the circumstances prevailing on 10th September 2008 but now the Trial Court has passed a specific order calling upon the authorities in Republic of Singapore for collecting certain material. Therefore, no change is brought about in the circumstances. On the contrary, there is a recent order dated 09th April 2009 which is referred to above. As stated earlier, the order dated 10th September 2008 was not challenged by the applicant and an undertaking was filed by the applicant that he will not travel to Bahamas and Singapore. Hence, no case is made out for modification of the order dated 10th September 2008. The application is accordingly rejected. ((-6-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)