Allowed

Janzeb Amir Kamal Khan @ Guddu Pathan v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jan 2023IA/205/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interim application seeking permission for the applicant to visit Saudi Arabia and travel to UAE and Oman. The court granted leave contingent on obtaining a passport and submitting travel details and itineraries to the investigating agency.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to travel to Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Oman subject to submission of itinerary and travel/residence details to the investigating agency.

Janzeb Amir Kamal Khan @ Guddu Pathan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

04-IA-205-23-IN-APEAL-1530-18.odt

¶2

1 / 3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.205 OF 2023

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1530 OF 2018

¶7

Janzeb Amir Kamal Khan @
Guddu Pathan.... Applicant
 versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.368 OF 2019

¶10

Mohsin Jamal Khan.... Appellant
 versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶11

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.931 OF 2019

¶12

Mohamed Jaman Khan & Ors..... Appellants
 versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
…....

¶13

Mr. B. B. Tiwari i/b. BBT Legal, Advocate for Applicant.

¶14

• Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶15

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 18th JANUARY, 2023

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2023.01.19 14:27:47 +0530

¶18

1. The order dated 08/12/2022 passed in Interim
Application No.3980 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1530 of

¶19

Nesarikar

¶20

2 / 3 04-IA-205-23-IN-APEAL-1530-18.odt

¶21

2018 shows that the Applicant was permitted to travel to Saudi
Arabia with effect from 23/12/2022 to 22/01/2023. The
reference was made to the earlier similar orders as follows :

¶22

(i) Criminal Application No.2060 of 2018 dated 14/01/2019. (ii) Criminal Application No.462 of 2019 dated 28/03/2019. (iii) Criminal Application No.1398 of 2019 dated 03/09/2019. (iv) Interim Application No.1 of 2019 dated 28/11/2019. (v) Interim Application No.1237 of 2020 dated 27/11/2020.

¶23

2. Learned counsel states and it is also mentioned in the
application that the Applicant could not travel to Saudi Arabia
between 23/12/2022 to 22/01/2023 because of the delay in
issuance of passport. In addition to permission to travel to Saudi
Arabia, the Applicant is seeking permission to travel to UAE and
Oman to see his daughter and grandson between 10/06/2023 to
10/07/2023.

¶24

3. Considering the earlier orders, the application can be

¶25

allowed. Learned APP does not have objection for granting this
application.

¶26

04-IA-205-23-IN-APEAL-1530-18.odt

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

4. Hence, the following order :

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

(i)The application is allowed.

¶31

(ii) The Applicant is permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia between 23/03/2023 to 22/04/2023 and also to UAE and Oman, between 10/06/2023 to 10/07/2023.

¶32

(iii) The Applicant shall submit his itinerary before the investigating agency. He shall also give the details of his travel and residence at these places including the telephone numbers.

¶33

(iv) Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Janzeb Amir Kamal Khan @ Guddu Pathan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janzeb Amir Kamal Khan @ Guddu Pathan v. 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

Trambak Rambhau Sadgir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Suresh Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Omkar @ Chikya Ananda Chougule Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikramsingh Gumansingh Rajput @ Vikramsingh Gumansingh Rajpurohit @ Vicky @ Vickysingh Vs State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Ashok Mashalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Navnath Tukaram Behere Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.