Allowed

Abdul Rehman Abdul Gafoor Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Mar 2016APPA/275/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the applicant sought return of his passport to travel to Saudi Arabia for Hajj. The court allowed the application, fixing an undertaking with a security deposit and conditions to ensure compliance, noting the applicant's previous permitted travel for Umrah.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; passport to be delivered by Registrar; applicant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000; return to be conditioned on surrender of passport within one week.

Abdul Rehman Abdul Gafoor Shaikh Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cri appa 275-16.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2007

¶5

Abdul Rehman Abdul Gafoor Shaikh

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. Rahul Arote Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. A.S. Pai APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶14

DATE : MARCH 9, 2016.

¶15

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶16

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶17

This application has been filed by the applicant with a

¶18

prayer that the Passport of the applicant bearing No.

¶19

M9339048 which is presently in the custody of the Registrar

¶20

of the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, be delivered to the

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

¶22

cri appa 275-16.doc

¶23

applicant so that the applicant can travel to Mecca and

¶24

Madina in Saudi Arabia.

¶25

It is an admitted fact that this Court [Coram : Justice A.M. Khanwilkar ] by order dated 10th April, 2008 in Criminal Application No. 208 of 2008 granted permission to the applicant to go to very same place for a period of 30 days to perform Umrah. After visiting the said place, the applicant has returned back. Now, the applicant is again seeking permission to go to Mecca and Madina for performing Hajj Pilgrimage.

¶26

Looking to the fact that earlier also, the applicant was permitted to go to Mecca and Madina and he returned back, we are inclined to give permission to the applicant to go to Mecca and Madina from 20th March, 2016 to 15th April, 2016 on the applicant furnishing an undertaking to this Court by 14th March, 2016. The undertaking should be to the following effect :-

¶27

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

¶28

cri appa 275-16.doc

¶29

i. At the time of taking passport from the Registrar, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, the applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- [Rs. One Lakh Only] with the Registrar, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. On returning back from Saudi Arabia, the applicant shall handover his passport within a period of one week to the Registrar, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. On the passport being returned, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be returned back to the applicant. In case, if undertaking is violated, the amount will be forfeited.

¶30

ii. Before proceeding to Mecca and Madina, the applicant will inform the investigating agency the address at which he will reside in Mecca and Madina and contact number on which he can be contacted in Mecca and Madina.

¶31

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

¶32

cri appa 275-16.doc

¶33

iii. On returning back to India, he will redeposit the

¶34

passport with the Sessions Court.

¶35

iv. In addition, the learned counsel for the applicant

¶36

stated that the applicant will travel alone to Mecca and Madina and not with any of his family members. This statement will also be incorporated

¶37

in the undertaking.

¶38

In view of above, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶39

[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶40

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4

Abdul Rehman Abdul Gafoor Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehman Abdul Gafoor Shaikh 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

Santosh N. Bhukan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh N. Bhukan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Wilson Benjamin Castellino Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohamed Farid Jafar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Mahendra Gogati Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nitin Pradeep Khairnar Vs the State of Maharashtra