Allowed

Arun Digambar Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Mar 2018APPA/440/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court at Bombay granted permission to a convicted applicant, facing pending appeal, to travel abroad to Cyprus and the US. The court imposed strict conditions including retaining title documents with the registry and appointing counsel to represent him in the ongoing appeal while he is away.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to travel to Cyprus and North Carolina (U.S.) between April 16, 2018 and October 16, 2018, subject to conditions regarding title documents and appointment of counsel for the appeal.

Arun Digambar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(6)APPANo.4402018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.440 OF 2018 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.341 OF 2007

¶6

Arun Digambar Kulkarni ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Mr.Madan Gupta, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr.Prashant Jadhav, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶10

DATED : 22^nd MARCH 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 This is an application by the appellant/accused for permission to travel to Cyprus between 15^th April 2018 to 15^th July 2018 and to visit North Carolina (U.S.) to meet his elder daughter between 16^th July 2018 to 16^th October 2018. The reasons stated for this journey to the foreign country are to the effect that the applicant is blessed with a grand-daughter and, therefore, he wants to visit Cyprus and then he wants to meet his elder daughter, who is residing in North Carolina (U.S.).

1/4

Gaikwad RD

(6)APPANo.4402018

2 Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/accused. He drew my attention to several Orders passed by this Court annexed to the application permitting the applicant/accused to travel to foreign countries and submitted that after undertaking several journeys in past to foreign countries, the applicant has returned back to India by following conditions imposed on him. The learned Advocate further argued that as per Order of this Court dated 9^th January 2018 passed in criminal Application No.1743 of 2017, documents of title of the applicant over the Share Certificate and registered Conveyance Deed of his Flat No.C1, Highway Co-operative Housing Society, Shiv Shrushti, Kurla (East), Mumbai – 400 024 are already with the Registry of this Court as the applicant had not taken back those documents on his return from Sydney, Australia in pursuant to the Order dated 9^th January 2018.

¶17

3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application by submitting that he wants to verify whether the documents constituting the Share Certificate and registered Conveyance Deed are still with the Registry.

¶18

4 I have considered the submissions so advanced. The applicant/accused is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was the public servant at that time. The appeal

2/4

Gaikwad RD

(6)APPANo.4402018

filed by him challenging the conviction and resultant sentence is still pending before this Court. The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused made a statement that he will work out the appeal even in absence of the appellant/accused, if the same is listed for final hearing in the intervening period.

¶23

5 In this view of the matter, the following Order : ORDER

¶24

(i) The applicant is permitted to travel and visit Cyprus and North Carolina (U.S.) from 15^th April 2018 to 16^th October 2018 on the following conditions :

¶25

(a) The applicant shall made arrangement for conducting the appeal through a duly instructed Advocate.

¶26

(b) The applicant shall inform the prosecuting agency i.e. A.C.B., Mumbai of details of his travel programme i.e. the flight which he proposed to take, the addresses of the places where he proposed to stay, his contact numbers as well as e-mail address etc.

¶27

(c) The applicant shall not withdraw the Share Certificate and registered Conveyance Deed of his flat No.C1, Highway Co-operative Housing Society, Shiv Shrushti, Kurla (East), Mumbai – 400 024 from the Registry of this Court till he returns to India after undertaking his journey.

3/4

Gaikwad RD

(6)APPANo.4402018

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

¶32

(ii) The application is accordingly disposed of

¶33

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶34

4/4

¶35

Gaikwad RD

Arun Digambar Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Digambar Kulkarni 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santoshkumar Shrijaylal Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santoshkumar Shrijaylal Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santoshkumar Shrijaylal Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Henry Lowrence Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra

Papa @ Vakil Shamim Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Venkatesh Sinnarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra (Acb Mumbai)