Allowed

Suresh M. Kamath v. CBI Acb Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2018APPA/121/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal application filed seeking permission for an accused-servant convicted under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act to travel abroad while his appeal was pending. The court noted compliance with bail conditions and prior attendance before the special court as mitigating factors.

What did the court decide?

Permission to travel to Dubai from 26/02/2018 to 26/03/2018 and to Germany from 22/03/2018 to 26/03/2018 granted subject to conditions of furnishing addresses, cell numbers, itinerary, returning by 27

Suresh M. Kamath Vs CBI Acb Mumbai and Anr. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(905)APPANo.1212018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.121 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.376 OF 2016

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Suresh M. Kamath ... Applicant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai & Anr. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr.Dharma Raj i/b. Mr.Prakash J. Salsingikar, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant.

¶8

Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent/CBI.

¶9

Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶11

DATED : 16^th FEBRUARY 2018.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 This is an application for permission to travel abroad viz to Dubai and Germany for the period from 26/02/2018 to 26/03/2018.

¶14

2 The applicant/accused No.1 is convicted of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

1/4

Gaikwad RD

(905)APPANo.1212018

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant was the public servant.

¶19

3 Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant/accused as well as Shri.Venegaonkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the CBI. The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused drew my attention to the earlier similar Order passed by this Court on 29^th August 2017 and submitted that the applicant/accused be given permission as he has already undergone at least ¾ sentence imposed on him and he is permanent resident of Dahisar in Mumbai. Shri.Venegaonkar, the learned Advocate for the CBI submitted that during pendency of the trial, the applicant/accused had absconded and he was rearrested under the Orders of the Court and then the trial continued.

¶20

4 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant record.

¶21

5 While granting bail to the applicant/accused this Court has imposed condition of attendance before the leaned Special Court once in three months. The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused has tendered certified copy of the roznama of the learned Special Judge which is taken record. This roznama shows that the applicant/accused is duly attending Special Court of Mumbai as per directions of this Court. Hence, now it cannot

2/4

Gaikwad RD

(905)APPANo.1212018

be said that the applicant/accused would abscond and will not be available for undergoing the sentence if confirmed by this Court in this appeal. On earlier occasion, similar such application was made and it was allowed. Therefore, the following Order :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The applicant is permitted to travel abroad for the period from 26^th February 2018 to 2^nd March 2018 to Dubai and from 22^nd March 2018 to 26^th March 2018 to Germany

¶28

(ii) As a condition of this Order, the applicant/accused shall furnish his address of residence at Germany and Dubai to the prosecuting agency i.e. CBI. He shall also supply his cell phone number which he may use while traveling abroad to the CBI.

¶29

(iii) The applicant/accused to give his tour itinerary to the prosecuting agency i.e. CBI.

¶30

(iv) The applicant/accused should strictly return to India after completion of his tour on 27^th March 2018 and shall also report this fact to the prosecuting agency i.e. CBI.

¶31

(v) The CBI to return the passport to the applicant/accused for traveling abroad forthwith.

3/4

Gaikwad RD

(905)APPANo.1212018

(vi) On return to India after completion of tour, the applicant/accused to deposit his passport with the CBI.

¶36

(vii) Parties to act on authenticated copy of this Order.

¶37

(viii) The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶39

4/4

¶40

Gaikwad RD

Suresh M. Kamath v. CBI Acb Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh M. Kamath v. CBI Acb Mumbai 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

Sriroz Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rameshwar Inder Thakur and Anr.

Ravi Manik Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Vishnu Lanjekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasant Rama Jadhav Vs Rakesh Malhotra and Anr.

Mohammad Azad Alam Diljad Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tejas Ghelani S/O. Dinesh Ghelani Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.