Disposed

Rajesh J. Parekh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2011APPP/43/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an application seeking permission to travel abroad. The court granted permission provisionally, directing the applicant to secure issuance of his passport and subsequently approach the court again with a travel schedule before emigrating.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted provisionally to travel abroad, subject to securing a valid passport and submitting a travel schedule.

Rajesh J. Parekh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 Cri-A-43-11.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Mhi

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4618 OF 2010

¶5

Rajesh J. Parekh ... Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/b. PDS & Associates,Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. A.T.Javeri, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. Mandar Goswami, Advocate, for respondent N.2 - CBI.

¶7

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

¶8

DATE : 4th March, 2011.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

The earlier application was moved by the applicant seeking permission from this Court to travel abroad on the ground that seven criminal cases filed by the CBI - Bank Securities and Fraud Cell under Section 420 read with Section 120B were pending before different Courts and whenever the

¶12

applicant is required to go abroad, he is required to seek permission from each Court for that purpose. That application was disposed of by order dated 25.11.2010 by this Court. At that time, the learned Counsel for the CBI had

¶13

2 Cri-A-43-11.sxw

¶14

contended that the applicant does not hold a valid passport and, therefore, his travel schedule was meaningless and permission could not be given to him to go abroad, unless he has got a valid passport. In view of this, this Court had rejected that application with liberty to the applicant to move afresh after valid passport is issued to him.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that when the applicant approached the Passport Authorities, they refused to consider the application unless permission to travel is granted. The learned Counsel for the CBI then contended that huge amount of Rs.246 crore is to be recovered from the applicant. The applicant has filed an affidavit giving details of the dues to show how the loan is secured. As per his affidavit, out of the loan of Rs.204.40 crore, amount of about Rs.60 crore has been repaid and balance is Rs.144.44 crore. Against this, there is a security of Rs.246.62 crore in the form of mortgage of land, building, plant, machinery, etc. and all that proper has been taken in custody of Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) and thus the loan amount is fully secured.

¶16

It appears that period of his passport expired. Admittedly, he had previously travelled abroad number of times with permission of the concerned

¶17

3 Cri-A-43-11.sxw

¶18

Magistrates. In view of these circumstances, this Court has no difficulty in granting permission to travel abroad. On the assumption that permission is granted by this Court, the request of the applicant may be considered by the Passport Authority for passport. After the passport is received by him, he may approach this Court for permission to go abroad on the basis of the travel schedule which he may submit.

¶19

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Rajesh J. Parekh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh J. Parekh 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

Ratan Ashok Bhalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor Balkrishna Ghagh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rashid Anis Pawle and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Iqbal Suleman Ghawte and Ors.

Swapnil Diwakar Bhatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi Dattatray Malbari Vs the State of Maharashtra