1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2319 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 380 OF 2010 Yusufoddin Rashidoddi Syed ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents ..... Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicant Smt. B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Shri Alok Sharma, A.S.G. for respondent no.2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 30 th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicant, Smt. B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri Alok Sharma, A.S.G. for respondent no.2. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant (original petitioner no. 9) seeking permission to depart from India for a period 2 of three months to enable him to visit Haj and also prayed that respondent no.2 Union of India be directed to issue passport in favour of the applicant for the limited purpose of visiting Haj at the earliest in the interest of justice. 3 Admittedly, a private complaint was filed by the complainants, namely Syed Sadiq Hussain Oftelar Jissaom and Mohd. Sajia Hussain Abed Hussain against in all 18 accused persons in Criminal Case No. 298 of 2008 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambajogai for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 464, 471 120(B), 182 of the Indian Penal Code, on 27.5.2008. 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the accused including the applicant herein i.e. accused no.10 Yusufoddin Rashidoddin Syed, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai, passed an order on the same day i.e. 27.5.2008 and issued directions under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the concerned police station. 5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the applicant and other accused persons preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 50 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Court, Beed. However, the said Criminal Revision Application also came to be 3 dismissed by order passed on 22.3.2010. 6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the said accused persons including the applicant herein (i.e. Petitioner no.9) preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 380 of 2010, challenging the said orders dated 27.5.2008 and 22.3.2010 respectively. Accordingly, this court passed an order in the said Criminal Writ Petition on 15.4.2010 and thereby directed the investigating officer that he shall submit the report as to the evidence he has collected so far, and as to whether he would file charge sheet or not and until he submits such report, he shall not to file charge sheet. 7 On the afore said background, the applicant (original petitioner no.9) has preferred the present application, contending that the applicant and his family members wish to visit the Holy Shrine of Prophet Mohammed Paigamber at Haj and he has already filed an application for the same, and the police personnel have to give clearance for issuance of the passport. However, it is submitted that the police have filed the report that the Criminal Case is pending against the applicant, and therefore, it has become incumbent upon the applicant to obtain permission from this court. The applicant also contends that the Ministry of External Affairs issued notification dated 25.8.1883 that the Indian citizen, against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them, are 4 pending before Criminal Court in India, who produces orders from the concerned court permitting them to depart from India on certain conditions, and that in the event of such permission, if granted by the concerned court, the passport be issued to such citizen for a specified period and copy of the said notification is annexed at Exh. 'C'. It is further submitted that admittedly charge sheet has not been filed against the applicant, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the applicant to obtain such permission from this court, and hence, the applicant has preferred the present application before this court. 8 The applicant also undertook to abide by all the conditions imposed upon him in the event of grant of permission as prayed for. 9 Mrs. Khekale, learned A.P.P., on instructions, submitted that except the afore said case, there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant and accordingly does not oppose the present application. 10 Shri Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondent no.2 submitted to the orders of the court. 11 After considering the rival submissions, admittedly inquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed against the applicant and other co-accused persons as 5 afore said, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai, and Criminal Revision Application against the said order was turned down and this court directed the investigating officer to submit the report in respect of the evidence, he has collected so far, and unless he submits such report, he was directed not to file charge sheet. 12 On this scenario, the applicant intends to visit Holy Shrine of Prophet Mohammed Paigamber at Haj, along with family members and applied for the passport therefor. However, apparently, police report was adverse against the applicant, and hence, the applicant has approached this court by way of present application. 13 In the light of the afore said facts, since the applicant intends to visit Holy Shrine of Prophet Mohammed Paigamber at Haj along with the family members as contended in the present application, he can be permitted to depart from India for the limited specified period i.e. for two months, to enable him to visit Haj and respondent no.2 can be directed to issue passport to the applicant for restricted period of three months for the purpose of visiting Haj, on certain conditions in the interest of justice. 14 In the result, present application is allowed partly and the applicant is permitted to depart from India for a specified period of 6 two months to enable him to visit Haj and respondent no.2 i.e. Union of India is directed to issue passport in favour of the applicant for the purpose of visiting Haj for the restricted period i.e for three months, on the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall furnish his complete itinerary of the afore said visit to Haj and the residential addresses during the said period of visit before the investigating officer. (ii) The applicant shall surrender his passport after return from the visit to Haj and shall report before the investigating officer. 15 The parties are directed to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap2319.10