1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3453 OF 2009 Rajubhai @ Shiraj Ali Dawood Kotadia ....... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. Uday Warunjikar adv. for the Applicant Mr. J.P. Yagnik APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 24th August, 2009. P. C.: 1. The applicant is the proprietor of a travel agency and carries on business at Mumbai. The applicant is being prosecuted for commission of an offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 201 read with 34 and 129-B of IPC and under section 12(1)(B) (1-A)(B), 2(3) of the Passport Act. The applicant has been granted bail by the Sessions court on 11-1-2007. However, while granting bail certain conditions were imposed and one of the conditions imposed is to be surrender of passport by the applicant to the police and not to leave Mumbai without prior permission of the court. 2. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, on two earlier occasions the applicant had applied for permission to go 2 abroad and the permission was granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, however, the applicant could not go as his bank accounts were seized. According to the applicant he has two sons and both of them are taking education in USA, One of the sons by name Sahir Shiraz Kotadia has completed his education and he proposes to come back along with the present applicant to India whereas the younger son by name Asher Shiraz Kotadia is taking education in `Pratt institute’. A communication is annexed with the copy of VISA wherein it is stated that some orientation programme is to be held from 19 th August to 31 st August 2009, and the applicant is desirous of attending the said programme. Hence he had moved an application before Sessions Court for permitting him to visit USA and for that purpose a direction was sought to hand over the passport to the applicant by the investigating officer. As the Sessions Court rejected the application, this court is moved. 3. The applicant has furnished the itenery of his visit by filing the affidavit. In the affidavit he has also made a disclosure in regard to his immovable property which is owned by the present applicant. The investigating officer has caused an enquiry to be made touching the ownership of the properties mentioned in the affidavit filed by the present applicant dated 14-8-2009. It is seen from the report which is submitted by the investigating officer to the learned APP dated 24-8-2009 that the property mentioned in the affidavit stands in the name of the present applicant. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances on record, I 3 deem it appropriate to permit the applicant to travel abroad and for that purpose direct the investigating officer to hand over the passport to the applicant. It is submitted that on account of delay in disposal of the present application, the applicant has lost about five days of his scheduled travel period and thus it is orally requested that the applicant be permitted to avail the period of five days more i.e. over and in addition to the earlier scheduled date of return being 5th September 2009. It is as such urged that the applicant be permitted to stay abroad till 10-9-2009. 4. In the result the application is allowed. The applicant is granted permission to leave India to the destination indicated in the application. The applicant shall furnish the complete itenery of his stay abroad till the date of his scheduled return namely 10-9-2009 to the investigating officer within a period of two days from today. The applicant shall not leave abroad without furnishing the itenery to the I.O. and within 48 hours of his return from the journey the applicant shall deposit the passport with the investigating officer. The application is disposed of with the above direction. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)