Bombay High Court
Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 5 May, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apl322.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.322/2016
Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra,
aged about 49 Yrs., R/o Cotton Market,
Plot No.7, Tank Road, Khamgaon,
Distt. Buldhana. ..Applicant.
..Versus..
The State of Maharashtra,
through Anti Corruption Bureau/Crime Branch,
Amravati. ..Non-applicant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri S.Z. Qazi, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri K.R. Lule, A.P.P. for the non-applicant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 5.5.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.Z. Qazi, advocate for the applicant and Shri K.R. Lule, A.P.P.
for the non-applicant.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The applicant has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed by the applicant seeking permission to
2 apl322.16
leave India for pilgrimage purposes i.e. for performing Hajj and visiting Balalaika.
4. The applicant is being prosecuted for the offenses punishable under
Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 7, 13(K)(D) I, II, III of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
This Court by the order dated 14 th March, 2013 granted bail to the applicant,
however, imposed condition that the applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the trial Court.
As the applicant intends to go for Hajj and to go to Balalaika. The applicant
had filed application before the Sessions Court seeking permission for leaving India
and seeking his passport which is deposited with the non-applicant. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge has rejected this application.
5. The learned advocate for the applicant has pointed out the bereavement
made in the application that the applicant is willing to furnish the security as would
be directed by this Court and the wife, brother, parents, in-laws and other relatives
of the applicant are willing to furnish personal surety for the applicant.
The learned A.P.P. has opposed the application on the ground that the
offence for which the applicant is being prosecuted is grave and serious.
6. Considering the fact that the non-applicant has not made any complaint of
3 apl322.16
misuse of liberty by the applicant after he is granted bail, in my view, the applicant
can be granted permission to leave India for the purposes as stated in the
application.
Hence, the following order:
(i) The applicant is permitted to leave India and stay out for six months.
(ii) The applicant shall furnish his tour programmer to the non-applicant and also
file a copy of it along with an affidavit before the Sessions Court.
(iii) The applicant shall deposit passport of Master Burundian (son of applicant)
with the non-applicant.
(iv) The applicant shall also furnish solvent surety in respect of residential house
situated at Khayyam, Distt. Buldhana.
(v) On compliance with the above directions, the passport of the applicant be
returned to him.
(vi) The applicant shall re-deposit his passport with the non-applicant after
returning back to India.
(vii) On re-deposit of the passport by the applicant, the passport of Master
Burundian (son of applicant) be returned to him.
(viii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
