SM 1 914.wp.1891.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1891 OF 2011 Mr. Hitesh Nathulal Mistry ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ____________ Shri. A. H. H. Ponda for the Petitioner. Shri. S. S. Pednekar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 15 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present Petition, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 28 th June, 2011, vide which, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application of the present Petitioner for return of Passport and for permission to go abroad. 3. The Applicant is facing a criminal prosecution with an allegation that he had obtained second Passport by showing incorrect address and by concealing the information that he had earlier Passport. 4. The Applicant on two earlier occasions had been granted permission. When the Applicant made an application on the third occasion, the same is rejected on the ground that the Applicant stayed abroad beyond the period which was permitted by the Court by its SM 2 914.wp.1891.11 earlier order and as such disobeyed the Court’s order. 5. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Shri. Shitole learned APP for the State. 6. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant could not return back on the earlier occasion within a prescribed time as he was suffering from aliments and his wife was also indisposed. The learned Counsel for the Applicant also submits that if the Applicant had an intention to run away from the machinery of law, he would not have at all returned back to India. He submits that the Applicant is willing to abide by any condition as imposed by this Court. 7. The Applicant has filed an affidavit on record. He has stated that his wife is suffering from endocronological diceases and as such, required to be treated immediately. He undertakes that he will return to India within a period, prescribed by this Court. Two affidavits have been filed by Shri. Natulal Lalbhai Mistry, father of the Applicant and Shri. Pramod Nathubhai Mistry, the brother of the Applicant. It is stated in the affidavit of Shri. Natulal that he is the owner of a shop in Surat and that he is willing to surrender the Title Deeds to secure the presence of his son. The affidavit of Shril. Natulal Mistry is marked ‘X1’ and affidavit of Shri. Pramod Mistry is marked ‘X2’ for identification. In the affidavit of Shri. Pramod Mistry, he stated that he also owns a flat at the address given in the affidavit which is valued of Rs.15,00,000/- SM 3 914.wp.1891.11 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) and that he shall submit the copies of title documents, the original of which are lying with the bank, which has given loan for purchase of the said flat. 8. In that view of the matter, rule is allowed in the following term:- The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application of the Applicant for return of Passport and permission to travel Abroad is allowed on the following conditions: (i) The permission is granted for a period of six months. The undertaking given by the Applicant that he will return to India within prescribed period is accepted. (ii) The father of the Applicant Shri. Natulal Mistry and the brother Shri. Pramod Mistry shall surrender their Passport before the Investigation Officer. The father of the Applicant Shri. Natulal Mistry shall also deposit the Title Deeds of the shop owned by him with the Investigation Officer. (iii) On the return of the Applicant, the Investigation Officer shall return the Passport of the father and brother and also the title documents to them respectively. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)