Bombay High Court
Satling Gangadhar Ingole vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 36.ia-328-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.328 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1054 OF 2017
Satling Gangadhar Ingole ....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others. .... Respondents
-----
Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Counsel for Respondent No.2-CBI.
Mr. S.K. Halwasia, Advocate a/w. M. M. Nasiri, Ashish S.
Chavan, for Respondent No.3.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. The applicant was convicted by the Special Judge,
Solapur in Special Case No.11/2011 vide judgment and order
dated 30.11.2017. He was convicted for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was sentenced to
suffer SI for three years besides imposition of fine.
2. The applicant preferred Criminal Appeal
No.1054/2017, which is admitted and is pending before this
1 of 3
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 04:03:14 :::
:2: 36.ia-328-23.odt
Court. The applicant had preferred an application vide Criminal
Application No.1726/2017 in that appeal for suspension of
sentence and his release on bail. That application was allowed
vide order dated 24.1.2018. More than five years since his
conviction have passed.
3. The applicant now wants to travel abroad. He has
stated in his application that his son is working as Software
Engineer Specialist in a company at Atlanta, USA.
4. This application is for two prayers: one prayer is for
permission to travel to United States of America; and the other
prayer is for granting permission for issuance of passport.
5. Heard Shri Vijay Killedar, learned counsel for the
applicant, Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP for the respondent
No.1-State, Shri Kuldeep Patil, learned Counsel for respondent
No.2-CBI and Shri S.K. Halwasia, learned counsel for
Respondent No.3.
6. Learned counsel Shri Halwasia fairly submitted that
more than five years have passed and, therefore, the
impediment under Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act will not
come in the way of the applicant.
2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 04:03:14 :::
:3: 36.ia-328-23.odt
7. Learned Counsel Shri Patil for the respondent No.2
does not have objection for the applicant's travel abroad,
however, he submits that the applicant be directed to furnish the
details of his travel.
8. Considering these submissions, the application can
be allowed in the following terms :
:: O R D E R ::
i. The applicant is permitted to travel to United States of
America for a reasonable period.
ii. The applicant is permitted to apply for the passport. For
that purpose, specific permission is granted.
iii. The applicant shall inform the investigating agency about
his plans to travel to United State of America and shall
give full itinerary including his prospective stay and
contact numbers etc. to the investigating officer well in
advance.
iv. With these directions, the application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
3 of 3
