Dismissed

Farhad Rusi Bharucha v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2023IA/573/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed criminal application challenging rejection of petition to modify bail condition abroad. Court held imposition of condition is intra vires and applicant retains liberty to seek permission from Trial Court subject to its discretion.

What did the court decide?

Application for modification of bail condition for conducting business outside India was not allowed. Liberty to file appropriate application for permission retained.

Farhad Rusi Bharucha Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

5-apl-29-2023.doc

¶2

Ghuge

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2023

¶5

Gajendra Padam Singh Thakur … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.573 OF 2023

¶8

Farhad Rusi Bharucha … Applicant/Intervenor In the matter between :- Gajendra Padam Singh Thakur … Original Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Viral Babar a/w Sanjay Dhadam for the applicant. Mr. Carl Patel i/b Sanaea Umrigar for Intervenor. Mr. A.R. Patil APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : MARCH 8, 2023

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The applicant has filed present application challenging order dated 15^th November, 2022 rejecting the application of applicant filed before the learned Sessions Judge for modification of condition No.6 of order dated 28^th October, 2021 imposed while granting Anticipatory Bail Application to the application. Condition No.6 reads as under :-

¶13

¶14

5-apl-29-2023.doc

¶15

“6 Applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court”.

¶16

The applicant applied for modification of said condition stating that he is a businessman and needs to travel frequently. The learned Trial Court rejected the application taking into consideration that the nature of offence registered against the applicant.

¶17

The imposition of condition is within the power of the learned Trial Court while granting Anticipatory Bail. It is always open for the applicant to apply for permission whenever he wants to travel abroad such application will be decided by the learned Trial Court according to law.

¶18

Considering the reasons stated in the application for modification, no case for modification is made out.

¶19

However, it is clear that the applicant shall have liberty to file appropriate application for permission to travel abroad subject to discretion of learned Trial Court.

¶20

The Criminal Application stand dismissed. No costs.

¶21

In view of order passed in the present Criminal Application, the Interim Application No.573 of 2023 of does not survive.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Farhad Rusi Bharucha v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhad Rusi Bharucha v. State of Maharashtra 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

Fatema Irshad Tade and Ors. Vs Irshad Mohammad Yunus Tade and Anr.

Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Abhijeet Babasaheb Jankar Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Ors.

Nazim Sattar Padvekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajendra Padam Singh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nazim Sattar Padvekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.