1 FORMAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4444 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3540 OF 2010 Mr.Madhusudan G. Vyas. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents. Rajendra Sorankar for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. Ms.Z.Sayed for respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 6th June 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. In both these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th May 2010 by which an application filed by respondent No.2 for return of passport came to be allowed. 3. The applicant has filed criminal case being C.C.No.179/PW/2006 for various offences against respondent 2 FORMAT No.2 in both these petitions. The said respondent No.2 were arrested in the said crime and remanded to the police custody under order of the learned Magistrate. They were released on bail on filing undertaking and consent terms before this Court. It appears that the investigating officer had also seized the passport of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had approached this Court by filing Criminal Application Nos.58/2008 and 110/2008 for release of their passports. This Court vide order dated 15th July 2008 directed the passports to be returned to the applicants only for the purpose of renewal thereof and were further directed to be returned to the investigating officer after its renewal. It was clarified that in the event respondent No.2 (applicants therein) desire to travel abroad they were required to file fresh application before this Court. It further appears that another attempt on behalf of respondent No.2 by way of Criminal Application No.7/2010 for permission to travel abroad came to be rejected for non-compliance of the directions given by this Court. 4. After that respondent No.2 filed applications before the learned Magistrate on 19th May, 2010. From perusal of the report filed by the investigating officer, it clears appears that the investigating officer had pointed out the orders passed by this Court. In spite of this, impugned order have been passed by the learned Magistrate directing return of passports. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order has stated that the concerned police station has granted no-objection. This 3 FORMAT observation is patently contrary to the material on record. The report of the investigating officer dated 28th May 2010 clearly states that if the application is allowed it would amount to the breach of the orders passed by this Court. It appears that the learned Magistrate has totally ignored the earlier orders passed by this Court. Passing the order contrary to the orders of this Court is a very serious matter. When this Court has specifically observed that in the event the applicants, who are respondent No.2 in these petitions, desire to travel abroad they were required to make application to this Court, the learned Magistrate could not have entertained their applications, specifically, when the investigating officer has brought this fact to the notice of the learned Magistrate. I find that the learned Magistrate has totally erred in allowing the applications. In that view of the matter, impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Rule in both these petitions is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. This order be communicated to the learned Magistrate. Copy of this order may also be forwarded to the Registrar General for keeping the same in the file of the concerned Magistrate. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)