1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.581 OF 2008 Mr.Narendra G. Goel .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Amit Jajoo for the applicant. Mr.Raja Thakare, Spl. P.P a/w Ms. A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P for the State. Mr.Ganesh Gole for intervenor. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th June 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: . This revision application was finally heard on the earlier date and today revision application is kept for dictation of judgment. The applicant is accused no.4 who is facing charge for the offences under section 302, 397, 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was enlarged on bail. While granting bail by order dated 08th December 2005, a condition was imposed that the applicant shall surrender his passport and shall not leave jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior 2 permission. 2] An application was made by the prosecution for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the applicant. The said application was rejected by this Court. An application was made by the applicant before the Sessions Court praying for direction to return the passport and praying for permission to go abroad for a period of 2 ½ months. The said application was rejected by order dated 20th August 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant preferred a revision application to this Court which was disposed of finally by order dated 12th September 2007. This Court permitted the applicant to travel to United States of America subject to compliance with various terms and conditions incorporated therein. 3] According to the case of the applicant, a fresh application at Exhibit 19 was made before the Sessions Court. The said application has been annexed to this application at Exhibit F. In the said application, a prayer was made for modification of the condition imposed in the order granting bail regarding deposit of the passport and constraints put on travelling beyond the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. The said application 3 was heard by the learned Sessions Judge which was rejected by the order dated 20th October 2008. The prayer in this application is for setting aside the said order dated 20th October 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. A prayer is also made in this application to relax the conditions imposed in the order granting bail. A prayer is also made for grant of permission to the applicant to travel to United States of America to attend his son s graduation ceremony. 4] This application was placed before this Court on 02nd May 2009. The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant was that this Court has already granted permission to the applicant to go abroad and the applicant has complied with all the conditions imposed by this Court. He pointed out that the application made by the applicant could not have been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there was a possibility of a threat to the material witnesses who are residing abroad including a witness Smt.Rashmi Goyal. He pointed out that once this Court granted permission to the applicant to go abroad, the conditions imposed while granting bail regarding deposit of passport should have been modified. His submission in the alternative is that 4 this Court may grant permission to the applicant to travel abroad to attend graduation ceremony of his son. On 02nd May 2009 the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor (Smt.Rashmi Goyal) invited my attention to paragraph no.13 of the affidavit filed by the said intervenor on 27th April 2009. He contended that the authorities in United States of America have classified the applicant as an inadmissible alien . The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant stated that no such remark has been made by the United States Authorities on the passport of the applicant. At that stage the learned counsel for the intervenor sought two weeks time to produce documentary evidence to show that the applicant has been classified as an inadmissible alien . This Court, therefore, granted time to the intervenor to produce the material and additional affidavit was accordingly filed by the intervenor on 05th May 2009. 5] The learned counsel appearing for the prosecution has relied upon letter dated 08th October 2007 sent by the applicant to the investigating officer. He pointed out that the said letter discloses that when in terms of order passed by this Court the applicant visited the United States of 5 America, the applicant was picked up by the officials of Homeland Security Department on 06th October 2007 from his hotel and he was instructed to leave to United States of America and accordingly he returned home. He, therefore, submitted that in view of this conduct of the applicant the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for relaxation of conditions imposed while granting bail. 6] The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor invited my attention to further affidavit dated 05th May 2009 filed by the intervenor to which an extract of United States Code Annotated which deals with inadmissible aliens has been relied upon. Apart from the said document, the learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that considering the conduct of the applicant it is unsafe to permit him to visit United States of America. He pointed out that on his earlier visit the applicant was apprehended by the authorities in the USA upon discovering that he was an inadmissible alien. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant is disentitled to any relief. 7] I have carefully considered the submissions. As stated earlier, by order dated 12th September 2007 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.430 of 6 2007, the applicant was permitted to visit United States of America for a period of two months subject to compliance with various conditions. One of the conditions was that the applicant will neither apply for VISA in any other country than United States of America nor will he visit any other country except United States of America. The applicant was directed to furnish undertaking on oath as set out in the said order. The applicant was also directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the Registrar General of this Court as specified in the order. 8] Thus, the said order shows that this Court had chosen to impose very stringent conditions while granting permission to the applicant to visit United States of America. It must be noted here that none of the respondents have made any allegation regarding breach by the applicant of any of the terms and conditions incorporated in the said order of this Court. On the contrary there seems to be no dispute that the said conditions were complied with by the applicant. The opposition of the learned counsel appearing for the prosecution is based on the fact that when the applicant visited United States of America in terms of the said order of this Court, the 7 officials of the United States of America informed him to leave the United States of America and accordingly the applicant was immediately required to come back. 9] As stated earlier there are two reliefs sought in this application. The first is of setting aside order dated 20th October 2008 and of relaxation of the condition of bail regarding deposit of the passport. The second prayer is that the applicant be permitted to travel abroad to attend his son s graduation ceremony. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant fairly stated that now the graduation ceremony is over. Therefore, two questions are required to be considered. Firstly, whether a case is made out for permitting the applicant to visit United States of America and the second question is whether bail condition could be relaxed. 10] As far as the first question is concerned, as of today, the applicant is not seeking to visit United States of America on any specific date. However, submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the intervenor opposing the grant of the said relief. Therefore, this aspect will have to be dealt with. As stated earlier, this Court by order dated 12th 8 September 2007 permitted the applicant to travel to USA. The applicant had complied with the conditions imposed by this Court under the order passed on 12th September 2007. What is brought on record is that after the applicant availed of the benefit of the said orer and reached United States of America, the authorities of the said country directed the applicant to return. Though time was granted to the intervenor on 02nd May 2009, no specific document could be produced on record to show that the applicant has been classified by the Government authorities of the United States of America as an inadmissible alien . Perusal of both the affidavits filed by the intervenor show that there is no specific allegation that after reaching the United States of America any attempt was made by the applicant to threaten the witnesses or to influence the witnesses. In fact, the reason as to why the authorities in United States of America instructed the applicant to leave the said country are not brought on record. 11] In absence of any material brought on record regarding the alleged conduct of the applicant in United States of America and considering the fact that this Court earlier granted permission to the 9 applicant to travel to United States of America on the basis of the material produced by the respondents before this Court, it cannot be stated that any depature is required to be made from the earlier order dated 12th September 2007 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.430 of 2007. Therefore, in future, if the applicant desires to travel to United States of America, he will have to make an application to the trial Court for grant of permission in terms of order dated 12th September 2007 passed by this Court. Atleast as of today there is no ground to deny such permission to the applicant provided the applicant shows readiness and willingness to comply with the conditions incorporated in order dated 12th September 2007 and such other conditions which the learned trial Judge may deem it fit. As and when such application is made, the Court is bound to consider subsequent events, if any. However, as of today there is no reason to grant any specific permission to the applicant as he has not come out with a case that he has any plans of travelling to United States of America in near future. Even if permission, if any, is granted in favour of the applicant to travel to United States of America, it is obvious that it is for the authorities of the said country to decide 10 whether the applicant is entitled to entry VISA or not. It is not for this Court to deal with this aspect. Suffice it to say that no material has been brought on record by any of the respondents as of today to deny permission to the applicant to travel to United States of America subject to compliance with various terms and conditions including conditions incorporated in order dated 12th September 2007 passed by this Court. 12] As far as wider relief of relaxation of condition is concerned, considering the nature of the accusations against the applicants, at this stage no case is made out for modification of the conditions imposed while granting bail. The condition permits the applicant to apply for permission of the concerned Court to travel abroad and as stated earlier, this Court on earlier occasion granted permission to the applicant to travel abroad. 13] In the circumstances, the application is disposed of by passing following order: : O R D E R : 1. Prayers (b) and (c) are rejected. 11 2. However, in the light of the observations made in this order it will be open for the applicant to make an application to the trial Court seeking permission to travel to United States of America for a temporary period and if such application is made, the same shall be decided in accordance with law in the light of what is observed in this order. (A.S.OKA,J)