Allowed

Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Dholan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Feb 2014APPLN/883/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application by an accused in a Sessions case seeking permission to travel abroad for Haj pilgrimage. The High Court allowed the application, quashing the lower court's rejection and directing the trial judge to grant permission within a week on appropriate terms.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Additional Sessions Judge directed to allow applicant's application within one week on reasonable terms and conditions.

Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Dholan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶2

Criminal Application No. 883 of 2014

¶3

Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Dholan, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Nagziri-Mohalla, Raver, Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon.

¶4

.. Applicant.

¶5

versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶7

Mr. P.P. More, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent - State.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶9

DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard Mr. S.S. Jadhav, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. By consent, heard finally.

¶12

(2)

¶13

The applicant is one of the accused in Sessions Case No. 212/2008, pending before the Sessions Court at Jalgaon. The applicant made an application (Exhibit 88) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who is trying the said case, submitting that the case had been pending since 2008, and that, it would take considerable time to dispose of the case. The applicant submitted that in view of the conditions imposed upon him while granting anticipatory bail to him, he was not in a position to depart from India, without the permission of the court. The applicant, therefore, prayed that he be granted permission to visit Mecca and Madina during the period from August 2014 to November 2014, and that, his presence before the Police and before the court during that period be dispensed with. This application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 30-1-2014, aggrieved by which, the applicant has approached this Court, by filing the present Application.

¶14

I have gone through the said order. The learned Judge observed that ‘the visit to holy places was not an emergent cause’, and that, ‘it was not for a small period’. The learned Judge observed that, ‘the visit was a personal cause’ and ‘it was religious one’. The learned Judge observed that, the applicant could ask for expeditious disposal of the case. Holding that allowing the accused to go out of India for a period of four months was not ‘suitable, emergent and necessary’, and that ‘the applicant could go to Haj at any time in his life , the learned Judge rejected the application.

¶15

The observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be appreciated. Particularly, the observations made in para 3

¶16

(3)

¶17

of the order appear to be rather unwarranted.

¶18

In view of the fact that the learned Judge had mentioned in the order that, the case would be disposed of expeditiously, a report was called for from the learned Judge, as to whether he would be in a position to conclude the trial before August 2014. The learned Judge has indicated that the trial could be concluded before August 2014.

¶19

Mr. S.S. Jadhav, the learned Counsel for the applicant explained that, the applicant cannot wait for the permission any longer, as, though he has to leave in the month of August, he is required to move an application for issuance of passport before 15th March 2014.

¶20

In my opinion, since the applicant wants to depart from India, during the period from 20th August 2014 to 15th November 2014, and since the trial court considers that the trial would be disposed of before August 2014, it would be proper to direct the trial court to grant the necessary permission as sought for by the applicant, on certain terms and conditions. The applicant may be either acquitted or convicted as a result of the trial. However, in either case, grant of permission would be proper. It is because, if the applicant is convicted, then he would not obviously be able to avail of the said permission. On the other hand, if the permission is not granted and the trial results in the acquittal of the applicant, the applicant would suffer inspite of the acquittal as, at that late stage, he would not be in a position to go for Huj pilgrimage as desired by him.

¶21

In the result, the Application is allowed.

¶22

(4)

¶23

The impugned order is set aside.

¶24

The Additional Sessions Judge is directed to allow the application at Exhibit 88, on such terms and conditions, as would appear to the learned Judge, reasonable and proper.

¶25

The necessary orders on Exhibit 88 shall be passed by the learned Judge after hearing the applicant, and within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order by him.

¶26

The Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY ) JUDGE

¶29

bgp/CrA883

Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Dholan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Dholan v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Shivaji Sukhdeo Jaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Uni Multi Trade India Pvt.Ltd and Others Vs Dr.Sonal Prajwal Mithawala and Another

Rajendra Tukaram Ahirrao and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kunal @ Sandeep Haribhau Lahane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Haribhau Vitthalrao Lahane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dasrao Bapurao Puyad Vs the State of Maharashtra