Allowed

Bhupendra Surani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2011APL/580/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting bail to a Non Resident Indian applicant charged in a criminal case, permitting travel outside India and imposing strict periodic attendance conditions at investigation station.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant permitted to travel to Dubai and Hong Kong from 27th September 2011 for one month and required to appear at Investigator's station on 12th, 15th, 19th, 22nd and 26th Sep

Bhupendra Surani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

APL 580.11.sxw

JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 580 OF 2011

¶6

Mr. Bhupendra Jivraj Surani.

¶7

... Applicant.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra.

¶10

... Respondent.

¶11

Mr. Bhupendra Surani, Applicant-in-person. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State.

¶12

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶13

DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2011.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

An affidavit is tendered by the learned APP of Karan G. Sonkawade, Police Sub Inspector, attached to Criminal Intelligence Unit (Operations), DCB, CID. Copy received by the Applicant.

¶16

Heard the Applicant-in-Person. The Applicant Bhupendra Surani is a Non Resident Indian (NRI) claims to have been settled at Dubai. He is facing prosecution at the instance of DCB, CID. In past, as per the chart furnished by the Police and even by the Applicant, he was permitted to leave India for travel to either to Dubai or to Hong Kong and he has not breached terms of said travel.

¶17

APL 580.11.sxw

¶18

¶19

The pass-port of parents of the Applicant Bhupendra Surani viz. Mr. Jivraj Surani and Mrs. Kunver Ben Jivraj Surani are with the Department. Even if orders of its return are passed, the pass-port of his parents shall not be handed over either to the Applicant or his parents as the Applicant accepts that the pass-port can be retained by the authorities/investigator.

¶20

The Applicant owing to earlier orders has already deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which is lying with the Sessions Court. The amount to be retained as a condition precedent till the Applicant returns from abroad.

¶21

The Applicant, since has his business connectivity at Dubai, he is permitted to travel for Dubai and Hong Kong any time after 27^th September 2011 for a period of one month. The Applicant, in the meantime shall attend the Investigator on 12^th , 15^th , 19^th , 22^nd and 26^th September 2011 between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. against an acknowledgment from the Investigator. The Applicant need not be unnecessarily detained after the duration. The Application is allowed with above restrictions.

¶22

(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Bhupendra Surani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Surani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash Devikishan Laddha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kamal Kalyandasani Vs Surinder Kundanani and Anr.

M/S. Saruta Organics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Anandrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Krishna Satish Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.