Bombay High Court
Chetan Janardhan Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.651 OF 2016
Chetan S/o Janardhan Kamble,
Age-40 years, Occu-Business and Social Work,
R/o Dr.Ambedkar Chowk, Bhimnagar,
Bhausingpura, Aurangabad. PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
ig RESPONDENT
Mr.S.B.Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, APP for the respondent/State.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 29/06/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the
learned APP.
3. On 15/06/2016, this Court had passed the following order :-
"1. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits on
instructions that there are certain immovable properties in the
khs/JUNE 2016/651-d
name of the petitioner as well as his wife. Learned APP prays
for a copy of the said documents so as to seek instructions.
2. Liberty to file the copies of the documents pertaining to the
immovable properties of the petitioner and his wife.
3. Stand over to 29/06/2016 to enable the learned APP to
take instructions in the matter."
4.
Learned APP submits on instructions that the documents
supplied to him by the petitioner are as follows :-
[a] 7/12 extract of land admeasuring 1 acre, Gat No.67 at village
Puri, Tal.Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad
[b] 7/12 extract of land Admeasuring 1 acre, Gat No.27 in village
Zadgaon, Tal. and Dist.Aurangabad.
Learned APP submits on instructions that the first property is
validly held by the petitioner and the second property is held by his
wife. The documents (4 pages) supplied to the petitioner are copies of
the originals and the properties are genuinely held by the petitioner
and his wife.
5. The copies of the documents (4 pages) are taken on record and
marked as Exhibit "X" collectively for identification.
khs/JUNE 2016/651-d
6. It appears that the petitioner is keen to visit Germany for his
business purposes. The document placed on record with regard to
the invitation extended to the petitioner by the Consulate General of
the Federal Republic of Germany indicates that the petitioner is being
invited for visiting certain business establishments in Germany and
to negotiate final details pursuant to the offers received earlier.
7.
The impugned order dated 30/03/2016 rejecting application
Exhibit 51 filed by the petitioner for seeking permission to travel to
Germany, is passed only because he was remaining absent in the
proceedings. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that if the
application is restored, the petitioner would remain present in the
Court during the hearing of the application. The learned APP
submits that the request of the petitioner may be considered only if
he places on record the original documents of the properties of Gat
No.67 standing in his name and Gat No.27 standing in the name of
his wife before the learned District and Sessions Judge in Cri.Appeal
No.5/2011.
8. I find from the record that the petitioner has been granted such
permission on 04/04/2016 in RCC No.1754/2000, 30/03/2016 in SC
No.437/2010 and 07/05/2014 in Cri.Appl.No.5/2011.
khs/JUNE 2016/651-d
9. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. Application Exh.51 is
restored in Cri.Appeal No.5/2011 on the following conditions :-
[a] The petitioner shall place before the learned Court the original
documents regarding his title in Gat No.67 as noted above as
well as Gat No.27 standing in the name of his wife.
[b] The Appeal Court shall consider the authenticity of the said
documents and preserve them in its records.
[c] On the condition of depositing the above original documents,
the Appeal Court shall allow Exh.51.
[d] The petitioner and his wife namely Reema Chetan Kamble
shall not create third party interest in the said properties until
the original documents are returned to them by the learned
Appeal Court.
[e] While considering Exh.51, the learned Appeal Court shall
consider the earlier orders passed by the learned C.J.M. dated
04/04/2016 below Exh.75 in RCC No.1754/2000, the order
dated 30/03/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-5, Aurangabad below Exh.164 in SC No.437/2010 and
the order dated 07/05/2014 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad below Exh.43 in Cri.Appeal
No.5/2011 and may impose similar conditions on the
petitioner while granting Exh.51.
[f] The pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner shall
proceed in accordance with law and shall not be adjourned
only on account of the absence of the petitioner.
[g] After the petitioner returns from Germany, he may apply for
khs/JUNE 2016/651-d
the custody of the original documents deposited by him and
his wife and the learned Appeal Court may accordingly pass
an appropriate order.
10. The learned Appeal Court shall, in the light of this order, pass
orders on Exh.51 urgently.
11. Parties shall act on the print out of this order obtained from
the official website of the Bombay High Court.
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/JUNE 2016/651-d
