IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1253 OF 2008 Vilaschandra Rajaram Joshi .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.V.S.Paradkar for the petitioner. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. Mr.H.V.Mehta with Mrs.U.V.Kejanwal for the respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. P.C.: . The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent were heard yesterday. The petitioner is facing prosecution for offences punishable under section 120(B), 380, 411, 454 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)(iii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on 09th March 2004. The petitioner made an application before the learned Special Judge before whom trial is pending seeking permission to go abroad for a period of two months for the purposes of visiting his son who is working in the United States of America (USA). The said : 2 : application was rejected by the learned Special Judge by order dated 22nd May 2008. The learned Judge observed that the case pertains to Telgi Counterfeit Scam and considering the seriousness of the crime, it is not desirable that the petitioner should go abroad to USA. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the chargesheet filed in the case. He pointed out that even in the chargesheet it is pointed out that the petitioner was posted as an Inspector of Railway Police Force at Nasik Road railway station during the period from 03rd June 1990 and 09th June 1994 and all activities of despatching consignments from Nasik Road railway station have allegedly taken place from the year 1996 onwards. He has invited my attention to paragraph 37 of the chargesheet filed by the C.B.I. He submitted that in any event there is no possibility of trial commencing in near future. He submitted that considering the role ascribed to the petitioner, there was no reason to deny permission to the petitioner to visit his son who is staying in USA. 3. Mr.H.V.Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent opposed the petition by pointing out the nature of allegations in the chargesheet. He : 3 : submitted that considering the seriousness of the crime, the learned Special Judge was justified in rejecting the application made by the petitioner. He submitted that no interference was called for considering the seriousness of the crime which affected the economy of the country. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered on record an affidavit of the petitioner. 4. I have perused the impugned order. I have also perused the copy of chargesheet. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was posted at Nasik Road railway station as an inspector of the railway police force during the period commencing from 03th June 1990 and ending with 09th June 1994. The allegations in the chargesheet is that on 53 occasions consignments were booked and despatched to various destinations from Nasik road railway station by the India Security Press at Nasik during the period of 1997 to 2000. It is alleged that large number of cases of pilferage of stamps was recorded in the year 1997, 1998, 2001 and 2002. The chargesheet contains details of the consignments booked from Nasik road railway station by the India Security Press. The earliest consignment in the said list is of 04th September 1996. It is true that the case involves a very serious offence which affected economy of the : 4 : country. The petitioner is already enlarged on bail in the year 2004 and there is no allegation against him of misuse of liberty granted to him. In the order granting bail in favour of the petitioner, the learned Special Judge has observed that there is no possibility of the petitioner absconding. Even in the reply filed by the 2nd respondent, the allegation is that the criminal activities were committed between the period of 1997 and 2000. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that trial is likely to commence in near future. 5. The petitioner has filed an affidavit setting out the details of the place of residence of his son and contact numbers in USA. He has also disclosed the place of employment of his son. He has given an undertaking to return to India within two months from the date of departure and he has also given an undertaking to re-deposit his passport with the trial Court within 72 hours from the date of his arrival in India. Considering peculiar facts of the case, a permission deserves to be granted to the petitioner subject to compliance with certain conditions. Apart from accepting the undertaking recorded in the said affidavit, the petitioner will have to be directed to furnish surety and the amount of surety is quantified at : 5 : Rs.2,00,000/-. The petitioner will have to either furnish surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or will have to furnish cash surety of Rs.2,00,000/-. 6. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he will need some time to obtain Visa. Even if the permission is to be granted to the petitioner, it cannot be allowed to operate for indefinitely long time. Therefore, while granting permission to the petitioner to visit abroad, it will have to be clarified that the petitioner will have to avail of the permission granted within a period of four months from today. The petitioner will have to come back before the expiry of period of four months from today. It will have also to be clarified that the petitioner can travel abroad only for a period of two months from the date of departure from India. 7. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is permitted to visit United States of America for visiting his son for a period of two months from the date of his : 6 : departure from India. (iii) The passport of the petitioner shall be returned to him subject to petitioner furnishing a surety of Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. In the alternative, the petitioner will furnish cash surety of Rs.2,00,000/- for ensuring that he returns from United States of America within the stipulated period of two months. (iv) In the event the petitioner is denied Visa, he will immediately surrender the passport to the Court within a period of three days from the date on which Visa is denied to him. (v) Before travelling abroad, the petitioner will file an affidavit setting out a detailed travel schedule before the learned Special Judge. (vi) This order will remain operative for a period of four months from today. The petitioner will have to avail of benefit granted by this order and return to India within the outer : 7 : limit of four months fixed by this order. However, duration of his visit will be for maximum period specified in clause No.(ii) above. In case there is any delay in procuring Visa, it will be open for the petitioner to apply to the Special Court for extension of time of period of four months. (vii) The statements made by the petitioner and undertaking of the petitioner in the affidavit dated 11th September 2008 are accepted. It is made clear that permission is granted to the petitioner to visit abroad subject to compliance with undertaking incorporated in clause No.4 of the said affidavit. (viii) The petition is disposed of in above terms. (ix) The parties and concerned Court to act upon authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.Oka,J)