Allowed

Harshad Dhaneshlal Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Nov 2018APPLN/621/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal application No. 621 of 2018, the Bombay High Court allowed an applicant facing charges under IPC sections 354, 323, 504, and 506 to leave India for London from November 13 to 20, 2018, for urgent business. The judge relaxed a bail condition restricting travel outside the jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Permission to leave India for business in London from November 13, 2018, to November 20, 2018, and to return by November 21, 2018.

Harshad Dhaneshlal Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

cri. appln 621.18.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 621 OF 2018

¶6

Harshad Dhaneshlal Patel .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Suhas S.Deokar a/w Mr.Atmaram Patade, for the Applicant. Ms.Prajakta P. Shinde, APP for State. Mr.V.V.Kukade IO of Kandivali Police Station.

¶8

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. VACATION COURT DATE : 12^th NOVEMBER, 2018

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. Learned Counsel for the Applicant though has

¶11

initially prayed for relaxation or cancellation of condition No. 3(d) in the order dated 23/07/2018, on instructions, now restricts this Application only to the extent of praying that the Applicant may be permitted to leave India for the period from 13/11/2018 to 20/11/2018.

¶12

For the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323,

¶13

1/5

¶14

cri. appln 621.18.doc

¶15

504, 506 of IPC, C.R No. 512 of 2017 was registered with the Kandivali Police Station against the Petitioner. Apprehending his arrest, he filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1395 of 2017 which came to be allowed subject to certain terms and conditions. Insofar as condition No.3(d) is concerned, the same reads thus :

¶16

“3(d) : Applicant shall not leave jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the Investigating Officer and Court till filing the Charge-sheet.”

¶17

The application filed before learned Sessions Judge

¶18

for relaxing the said condition No. 3(d) and permitting the applicant to travel abroad is rejected by tthe order dated 03/11/2018.

¶19

It appears that the Applicant had purchased flat No. 1602 from the developer – Mr. Jayant Mehta. There were some disputes between the Applicant and developer -Mr. Jayant Mehta. Mr.Jayant Mehta's daughter alleged that on 12/11/2017 when the Applicant visited the house of the developer, some

¶20

2/5

¶21

cri. appln 621.18.doc

¶22

scuffle took place between them. It is alleged that the applicant committed offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, C.R No. 512 of 2017 against the developer's daughter.

¶23

By an order dated 23/07/2018, the Applicant has already been granted pre- arrest bail subject to certain terms and conditions. The Applicant is a businessman /diamond merchant by profession. The Applicant has filed an additional affidavit dated 12/11/2018 in support of Application wherein he has stated the details of his stay abroad. He has stated that he is a diamond merchant and needs to leave India for urgent business related work in London for the period from 13/11/2018 to 20/11/2018. He has further stated that he needs to attend meeting in London in respect of rough diamond auction meeting, deal and for submission, signing of necessary documents and finalisation of the deal as per the procedure. He has given undertaking about the journey and residential details about his stay while at London. There are no criminal antecedents reported against the Applicant.

¶24

3/5

¶25

cri. appln 621.18.doc

¶26

Learned APP opposed the Application.

¶27

Considering the fact that he is a businessman by

¶28

profession and there is a dispute pending with the developer in respect of flat which the Applicant has purchased from him and further that he has already been granted anticipatory bail, I am inclined to allow the present Application in the following terms.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The Applicant is permitted to leave India for attending the business related work in London from 13/11/2018 to 20/11/2018.

¶31

He shall furnish a detailed itinerary about the business trip with the Investigating Officer. The Applicant shall also submit the details of his residence along with necessary telephone/cell numbers where he is available while in London.

¶32

The Applicant undertakes to return by 21/11/2018 and upon his return, he shall report to the Investigating Officer

¶33

4/5

¶34

cri. appln 621.18.doc

¶35

on before 22/11/2018.

¶36

8. The Application is disposed of.

¶37

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶38

5/5

Harshad Dhaneshlal Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshad Dhaneshlal Patel 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

Sardar Miyasab Pirjade Vs Smt. Najirabi Mehaboob Shaikh and Ors.

Shri. Jayant Laxman Malbhari and Ors. Vs Shri. Ananta Gawtu Pondekar

Shri. Dagadu Pandurang Pawar and Anr. Vs Shri. Eknath Yashwant Kachare and Ors.

Urmish Manharlal Uadani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sikander Babu Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tarunkumar G Brahmbhatt and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.