SCR.A/181920/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1819 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 to 5 NO ========================================================= URMILABEN MATHURBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRATIK B BAROT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR IM PANDYA ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 20/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Learned A.P.P. waived service for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, claiming to be a U.S. citizen, a woman and an accused person in C.R. No.30 of 2006 registered SCR.A/181920/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT at Panigate Police Station, Vadodara, has approached this Court with the grievance that, by the impugned order dated 21.7.2008, her application for returning her passport has been rejected. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.Pratik Barot, appearing by way of legal aid, that, even according to the instructions of learned A.P.P., chargesheet in the criminal case was filed as early as on 04.3.2006 and thereafter the case was not proceeded with. It was further submitted that the petitioner's husband was a national and citizen of India and all the accused persons in the criminal case were once arrested and released on bail, except the main accused person being the son of petitioner and husband of the complainant. Thus, in short, release of the passport and travelling abroad of the petitioner are prevented only on the grounds that the petitioner may not return to India for facing the trial and it may become difficult to secure her presence at the time of trial. 3. It was, in the above context, fairly submitted and conceded by learned A.P.P. that undertaking of the petitioner as well as her husband and bond of suitable amount may serve the purpose of ensuring presence of the accused person at the time of trial. 4. Accordingly, petition is allowed with the direction that passport of the petitioner shall be returned to her on filing undertakings of herself and her husband stating on oath their addresses in India and in the U.S., with an undertaking to remain personally present in the trial Court as and when required by order of the trial Court. Both the persons shall also undertake to furnish solvent surety in the sum of rupees one lakh for abiding by the terms of the undertaking. Such SCR.A/181920/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT undertaking shall be filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara. Subject to fulfilment of these conditions and furnishing sureties to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate concerned, passport of the petitioner shall be returned to her and she will be permitted to leave the territory of Gujarat and India and the order dated 26.01.2006 of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara releasing the petitioner on bail shall stand modified to that extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)