(1) CRI. W.P. 1078.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1078 OF 2010 Manish Madhukarrao Navgire Aged : 38 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Prakashnagar, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.B. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 6TH DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The petitioner challenges order dated 23.11.2010 rendered by learned Additional District Judge-5, Aurangabad rejecting his Application (Exhibit 14) in Criminal Appeal no. 98 of 2010 for permission to go abroad for a short period. 2. By consent, the Petition is being finally disposed of after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. (2) CRI. W.P. 1078.2010 3. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Aurangabad in Criminal case bearing R.C.C. no. 770 of 2010 for the alleged offences punishable under section 448 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for period of three months and fine of Rs.1000/- under each head. He preferred an Appeal bearing Criminal Appeal no.98 of 2010 which is pending. 4. The petitioner applied to the learned Sessions Judge, to grant him leave to go abroad inasmuch as he wanted to attend a programme at holy place in Israel. He approached a travel agency and obtained a passport alongwith other incidental benefits available to him to visit Israel. It appears that nobody objected the request of the applicant on the ground that he was involved in a serious crime and was likely to flee from the country. The learned Sessions Judge rejected his application simply on the ground that the reason put forth by the petitioner was not just and the possibility that he may not return, cannot be ruled (3) CRI. W.P. 1078.2010 out. What is the basis to assume that he will not return to India is not clear from the impugned order. The petitioner is a priest. The petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that he will return to India and will not flee from the course of justice. He is not a hardened criminal. The Criminal case appears to be outcome of the dispute regarding the property inasmuch as he is held guilty for the alleged offence of committing encroachment. The sentence awarded to him is that of short term. 5. Considering the purpose for which the petitioner sought leave to go abroad and absence of any material to infer that he is likely to abscond, the permission could have been granted to him. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will re-schedule the programme and will return to India before 15th January, 2011. Considering the request, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner be allowed to go abroad on the condition that he will furnish an undertaking to the effect that he will return to India on or before 15.01.2011 and will (4) CRI. W.P. 1078.2010 further give details of the addresses of his relatives in India and the addresses where he will be available in Israel during the relevant period as well as his cell number, copy of the passport and the relevant information as may be required by the Court of Sessions. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp