1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2055 OF 2009 Ashok Kumar Himatlal Dhakan ...Applicant vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.U.N.Tripathi for the applicant Ms S.V.Gajre A.P.P. For State Mr.R.F.Lambay for Union of India. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 23, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant had made an application before the learned Magistrate for permission to go abroad. On 30 th January 2009, the said application was allowed. A prayer is made in the application for modification of the conditions (b), (c) and (d) in the said order which read thus : b) The applicant/accused Ashok Dhakan is permitted to go abroad i.e. Dubai for a period of three months. The permission will start from the date of his departure. c) The applicant/Accused is directed to deposit additional cash security of Rs.3,00,000/- with the court. d)In addition to the additional cash security, the applicant/ accused shall also furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/-. . The order of the trial court has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2 3 The learned counsel for the applicant states that the factual statement recorded in paragraph (5) of the impugned Judgment by the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect. He submitted that the applicant has travelled abroad and come back. Therefore, the direction issued by the trial court of furnishing addition cash security of Rs.3,00,000/- and of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- is unjust and illegal. He submitted that the applicant is a NRI and his family members are resident of Dubai. He therefore submitted that he may be permitted to travel for three months without complying with the said conditions. 4. I have perused the impugned order. So far as condition (b) is concerned, the applicant can always make a fresh application seeking permission to go abroad. Hence, it is not necessary to modify the said condition. On his own showing the applicant is NRI. He was detained under COFEPOSA. He claims to be a permanent resident of Dubai and he is running his business at Dubai. He himself has stated that the members of his family are residing at Dubai. Considering all these factual aspects, conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate for depositing additional cash surety of Rs.3,00,000/- and 3 furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- cannot be said to be unreasonable. No case is made out for modification of the said conditions. However, it is clarified that after coming back to India within stipulated time as per the impugned order, the applicant can again apply for seeking permission to go abroad. Subject to what is observed above, application is rejected. JUDGE