1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.379 OF 2010 Mr. Pradeep Saboo ..Applicant Vs. The Investigating Officer AIU, CSI, Airport & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Taraq Sayyed for the Applicant Shri. D.N.Salvi for Respondent No.1 Mrs. R.V.Newton APP for State CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED:- 4th March, 2010. P.C. 1. This is an application for quashing and setting aside the order dated 5th January 2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Esplanade, Mumbai, in notice No.316/N/09 in RA 40/2009, thereby rejecting the Application filed by the present Petitioner for permanent return of the passport. The Petitioner has also sought direction to the Respondent No.2 to return the passport to the Applicant permanently. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is engaged in a tourism industry and is, therefore, required to travel abroad on several occasions. He submits that, every 2 time the Applicant required to approach this court or some other Court for return of passport and such severe prejudice is caused to him. 2. The Application is vehemently opposed by the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. 3. The Applicant is being prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 135(1)(c) (i) of the Customs Act. On earlier occasion this Court had granted permission to the Applicant to travel abroad and his passport was directed to be returned on the condition that the Applicant shall furnish cash surety in a sum of Rs.5 lacs. It is not the case of the Respondent that any of the conditions which were imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail or by this Court while granting permission to go abroad have been violated by the Applicant. I find that since the Applicant is engaged in Tourism Industry, he is required to go abroad many time and if he is required to file application whenever he is required to go on tour, it will unnecessarily lead to filing repeated applications. 4. In so far as the apprehension of the prosecution is concerned the same can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. 5. In that view I allow the Application. The passport is directed to be 3 returned on Petitioner’s furnishing cash surety in a sum of Rs.10 lacs. The said surety will be kept alive during the pendency of the proceedings before the Learned Trial Court. As such, the conditions which requires the permission of the Court for leaving India, shall stand modified. The rest of the conditions shall continue to operate. (B.R. GAVAI, J)