1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1092 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 653 OF 2010 (Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Anil Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.S. Parihar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 18TH NOVEMBER, 2010. Heard. This is an application moved by the applicant seeking direction to grant permission to the applicant to visit KARBALA for a period of 20 days from 10.11.2010 to 30.11.2010 for religious function and also direction to Investigating Officer to return the passport. The reason stated in the application is that the applicant needs to visit holy and scared place KARBALA as the applicant has taken Mannat to visit KARBALA to offer prayer. The reply is filed by the State. The request of the applicant is strongly opposed. It is stated by the State that the applicant is protected by this Court by an ad-interim protection. The application is still pending for final disposal. It is also stated in the reply that the offence committed by the applicant is of serious nature and the allegations are of misappropriation of public funds running into crores of rupees. It is further stated that the trial is likely to commence soon and the presence of the applicant and the other accused persons would be necessary during the trial. An apprehension is expressed by the State that if the permission is granted, the applicant would not be available during the trial and the same would frustrate the trial. I find considerable merit in the apprehension expressed by the State. 2 It is not in dispute that the applicant has earlier filed Criminal Application No. 918 of 2010. In the said application, the similar request was made and the ground was shown that the applicant wanted to attend the religious function at Dubai. When it was brought to the notice of this Court that there are no details given by the applicant, the applicant sought permission to amend the application and then grounds were given that the applicant wanted to attend some Birthday function. The earlier Criminal Application No. 918 of 2010 was permitted to withdraw at the request of the applicant. In view of all the above mentioned facts, I am of the opinion that the apprehension expressed by the State is justified. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.