IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1844 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1845 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1847 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1848 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1849 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1850 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1851 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1852 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1853 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1854 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1855 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1857 OF 2008 Asian Electronics Limited and another .. Petitioners (In all the petitions) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents (In all the petitions) WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1846 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1856 OF 2008 Asian Electronics Limited and another .. Petitioners (In both the petitions) Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent (In both the petitions) : 2 : 2 : 2 : --- Mr.Mukul Taly alongwith Mr.Rakesh Misar i/by S.Mahomedbhai and Co for the petitioners in all the petitions. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1844 of 2008 to 1848 of 2008. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the State in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1849 of 2008 to 1853 of 2008. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the State in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1854 of 2008 to 1857 of 2008. --- CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 16th September 2008. : 16th September 2008. : 16th September 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in first information reports lodged with different police stations alleging commission of various offences under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 408, 409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The first information reports were registered at the instance of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDC). There was an agreement between the 1st petitioner and the MSEDC regarding supply of certain capcitors to MSEDC on lease rent basis. The allegation is of cheating. It is alleged that the petitioners : 3 : 3 : 3 : installed capcitors knowing fully well that the same were not in working condition and charged rent for the same. The allegation is of preparing false record. There is a large money claim made by the petitioners against the MSEDC. Applications were made by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. By orders dated 16th July 2007, the applications made by the petitioners in each case for anticipatory bail were granted. Various conditions were imposed. The conditions which are relevant for deciding these petitions are as under: "a) ...... b) ...... c) The applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Court or from the Magistrate Court, d) That the applicants are directed to surrender their passports, visa etc with investigation officer and investigating officer is directed to keep the custody of those papers with him till further orders of the Court having : 4 : 4 : 4 : power to take cognizance of the offence, e) The applicants further directed to not leave their native place or District Pune without informing to concerned investigating officer or without obtaining prior permission of the concerned investigating officer and Court, f) The applicants to take note that bail granted to them is strictly on the basis of above conditions, failing which the bail stands cancelled, g) ... h) The applicants are directed to provide access to the investigating machinery into their all offices, branch offices, their own premises in their custody, or in custody of their agents, servants, etc for the purpose of investigation or seizure of any property, articles, documents, any devoice, ere if required in the matter." 2. Applications were moved before the learned : 5 : 5 : 5 : Sessions Judge by the petitioners for return of passport and for grant of permission to travel abroad. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner is the Executive Director of the 1st petitioner and he was required to travel abroad for the purposes of deposing before the Court of Law. It is alleged that the appearance of the 2nd petitioner is necessary before the concerned Court in United States before 30th September 2008. Reliance has been placed on letter written to the 2nd petitioner by the attorneys in the United States. The applications made by the petitioners have been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The reasons recorded by the learned Judge can be found in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the impugned order which reads thus: "5. Learned A.P.P pointed out that there is no any summons, notice issued by competent Court at abroad to the applicants. He then pointed out that merely because applicants have deposited the amount as per direction of Hon’ble High Court it no way suffice the purpose. According to learned A.P.P if applicant/accused flees away then the said amount whether can be sufficient to meet with the ends of justice or not is a question which needs to be looked into. : 6 : 6 : 6 : The learned A.P.P then pointed out the report received from investigating agency and submitted that applicant is not co-operating with the police in investigation. In the light of all these circumstances, learned A.P.P prayed for rejection of application. 6. .... 7. Otherwise also it is necessary to keep in mind that FIR in like cases registered at several places fallen within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Aurangabad High Court is under challenge before the Hon’ble Aurangabad High Court. In the above circumstances any order passed by this Court may result into conflicting situation. In the above circumstances also, I find no any merit in the application moved by the applicants. In the above circumstances, the following order: ORDER The application stands rejected." : 7 : 7 : 7 : 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited my attention to the order passed by the Aurangabad bench of this Court in several criminal applications on 06th December 2007. He has pressed the petition only on behalf of the 2nd petitioner. He submitted that the 2nd petitioner ought to have been permitted to travel abroad. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has tendered on record the affidavit of the 2nd petitioner in which the purpose of visit to United States has been stated. The schedule of travel is also incorporated in the said affidavit. Various undertakings have been also recorded in the said affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the 2nd petitioner will abide by the statements made in the said affidavit. 4. The learned A.P.P has opposed the petition by pointing out that investigation is in progress in all 14 cases registered against the petitioners and different police stations are investigating into said offences. He submitted that the learned Judge was justified in accepting the apprehension expressed by the learned A.P.P which is reflected in paragraph 5 of the order. He submitted that if the 2nd petitioner is permitted to : 8 : 8 : 8 : travel abroad, it will affect the investigation which is still in progress. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be stated here that the prayer in this petition has been confined only to the 2nd petitioner by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It will be necessary to refer to the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court at Aurangabad on 06th December 2007. The said order has been passed in number of applications filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the first information reports registered against the petitioners at the instance of MSEDC within the jurisdiction of bench at Aurangabad. While passing the said order, the learned Judge directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in this Court. The learned Judge modified the interim relief granted earlier by permitting the investigation to go on. Clause (ii) of the said order reads thus: "(ii) The ad-interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (B) is modified and the investigation process is allowed to go further with direction that the investigating officer shall make the investigation into the complaints : 9 : 9 : 9 : but shall not call for personal attendance of the Executive Directors, during course of the investigation without issuing summons and without having a reason to call such a Director of the applicants for interrogation." 6. It is true that investigation is in progress. The learned A.P.P has produced for perusal of this Court a letter dated 18th July 2007 issued by the police officer of Local Crime Branch, Pune Rural calling upon the 2nd petitioner to remain present on 21st July 2007. According to him though the 2nd petitioner attended, he did not co-operate. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the 2nd petitioner will remain present before the concerned Investigating Officer of the Local Crime Branch, Pune Rural of Friday i.e 19th September 2008 at 11.00 a.m and will co-operate for investigation. 7. The offences have been registered more than a year back. There is no allegation against the 2nd petitioner of committing breach of conditions in the order granting anticipatory bail. In view of the order passed by the Aurangabad bench of this Court in : 10 : 10 : 10 : applications filed for quashing similar offences registered against the petitioners, permission cannot be denied to the 2nd petitioner to travel abroad for a limited purpose as set out in the affidavit tendered by the 2nd petitioner. As stated earlier, the 2nd petitioner has assured the Court that he will remain present before the Local Crime Branch, Pune Rural on Friday i.e 19th September 2008. To ensure that the 2nd petitioner returns within the time granted by this Court, the 2nd petitioner can be directed to furnish adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court. To ensure that the 2nd petitioner comes back within the time permitted by this Court, the 2nd petitioner will have to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.01,00,000/- in each case to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court. It will be open for the petitioner to furnish cash surety in the sum of Rs.01,00,000/- instead of surety. 8. Hence, petitions are disposed of by passing following order: (i) The affidavit of the 2nd petitioner is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. : 11 : 11 : 11 : The statements and undertakings therein are accepted. (ii) The 2nd petitioner is permitted to travel abroad from 23rd September 2008 to 10th November 2008 subject to compliance with various statements made in the said affidavit and subject to compliance with other conditions incorporated in this order. (iii) The 2nd petitioner is directed to remain present before the concerned officer of the Local Crime Branch, Pune Rural on Friday i.e 19th September 2008 at 11.00 a.m and to co-operate for investigation. (iv) The passport will be returned to the 2nd petitioner on the 2nd petitioner attending the office of the Local Crime Branch, Pune Rural on Friday i.e 19th September 2008 and subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.01,00,000/- in each case to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge or in the alternative, submitting cash surety of Rs.01,00,000/- in each case. The surety will : 12 : 12 : 12 : be for ensuring compliance with the statements made in the aforesaid affidavit and conditions imposed in this order. (v) Fourty-eight hours before leaving the country, the 2nd petitioner will file a detailed affidavit in this Court disclosing all the particulars which are referred to in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the 2nd petitioner. (vi) The said affidavit will also disclose the cell phone number and contact numbers of the 2nd petitioner while he is travelling abroad. (vii) It is made clear that all conditions incorporated in the order granting anticipatory bail will continue to be in force except the conditions which put restraint on the 2nd petitioner travelling abroad. (viii) On return to India, the 2nd petitioner will re-deposit the passport with the concerned Investigating Officer within a period of three days from the date on which he returns to India. : 13 : 13 : 13 : (ix) Writ Petitions are disposed of in above terms. (x) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of operative part of this order. (xi) This order will not prevent the petitioners from taking out appropriate proceedings for the modification of conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail. (A.S. Oka, J)