IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 92 of 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.2079 OF 2004 Mahesh Savani ..Applicant. Vs. The Intelligence Officer & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr Uday Warunjikar i/b Yogesh Rohira, Advocate for the Applicant Petitioner. Mr H. V. Mehta, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is an application preferred by the original accused for early hearing of Criminal writ Petition No. 2079/2004, filed by him in this Court. The said writ petition has already been admitted and pending for hearing. 3. Allegedly, the petitioner is arrested under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act for short) for the offence punishable under section 135 (1) (ii) of the Act in relation to certain goods which were not notified under section 123 of the Act. The learned Magistrate granted judicial custody and while granting bail imposed certain conditions as to handing over the passport to the Department. Thus, foreign travel of the applicant-accused has been restricted. Against the said conditional order the applicant-accused has preferred writ petition before this Court and which is admitted, as mentioned above. 4. Today, the learned counsel for the applicant-accused has brought to the notice of this Court a judgment reported in the case of Sultan Kamruddin Dharani vs. Union of India, Sultan Kamruddin Dharani vs. Union of India, Sultan Kamruddin Dharani vs. Union of India, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.) 2008 (231) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.) 2008 (231) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.) in which ratio propounded is that in the matter of a bailable offence the Magistrate cannot impose a condition while granting bail in the bailable offence of not leaving India without permission of the court. By taking shelter of the ratio of this authority, it is canvassed that consequently there cannot be any order for depositing of passport. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that this decision squarely covers the writ petition which is pending and the same can be disposed of. Hence, this application for early hearing. 5. After hearing the parties, after going through the ratio of the cited decision and after considering the prayers asked in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2079 of 2004, it would be in the fitness of the situation to dispose of such petition by early hearing. 6. In the result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Criminal Writ Petition No. 2079 of 2004 be listed for final hearing before the appropriate Bench. 7. Application No. 92 of 2009 is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)