1 (crim wp 2138 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2138 OF 2009 Prabhakar Narayan Sarvade ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ---- Mr.Ambar Joshi for Petitioner Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 10th Joint J.M.F.C., Thane, who was pleased to reject the application filed by him for return of the passport. The Petitioner is also challenging the condition imposed by the JMFC, Thane in the application for bail wherein he was directed to deposit his passport. 2 (crim wp 2138 of 2009) 3. It is submitted that a complaint was registered against the Applicant for the offence punishable under section 420, 406, 201, 120(B) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. I-84/2008 registered by the Wagle Estate Police Station, Thane. It is submitted that so far the chargesheet has not been filed. More than 2 years have been passed after the FIR was registered. The Petitioner is working as a Corporate Head of Tech Mahindra Limited and as such, he is required to attend various meetings and seminars all over the India and in other parts of the world. 4. I have perused the impugned order as also the order imposing condition that the Petitioner should deposit his passport. It is alleged in the complaint which was filed against the Petitioner that he was the member of the managing committee and that the chairman and the secretary had misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs.3 crores. The only allegation against the Petitioner is that he is the office bearer of the said 3 (crim wp 2138 of 2009) society. 5. In my view, taking into consideration the said facts it is not necessary to go into condition which was imposed in 2008. The said condition which was imposed can now be relaxed. The Applicant is the Corporate Head of Tech Mahindra Limited and on account of his employment, he is required to go abroad. The Petitioner is the permanent resident of Thane and as such, he is not likely to abscond. 6. Hence in my view, it would be appropriate if the Investigating Officer is directed to return the passport to the Petitioner herein. 7. The Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The Investigating Officer is directed to return the passport to the Petitioner. The order dated 3.8.2009 is set aside. The condition imposed by the Trial Court by its order dated 20.3.2008 is also relaxed in the 4 (crim wp 2138 of 2009) aforesaid terms. 8. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)