Allowed

Chintan Arvind Shah v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Apr 2024APL/117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 117 of 2024, Bombay High Court granted permission to applicant Chintan Arvind Shah to travel to Bali, Saudi Arabia, and Maldives in April 2024. The court ordered suspension of the Look Out Circular imposed on him in connection with pending criminal cases.

What did the court decide?

Permission to travel abroad to Bali, Saudi Arabia, and Maldives with suspension of LOC for specified durations and terms.

Chintan Arvind Shah Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

NISHA Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP SANDEEP CHITNISDate: 2024.04.05 CHITNIS 18:01:39 +0530

¶2

905-APL.117.2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.117 OF 2024

¶5

Chintan Arvind Shah Age:44, Occ.Business Address: residing at 49/50, 5^th Floor, Prem Court Near Jaslok Hospital, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. ...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Sr. Inspector of Police Economic Offences Wing, Thane ...Respondent

¶8

Mr. Hemant Ingle i/b Mr. Pratik P. Ingle, for the Applicant.

¶9

Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent – State.

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 5^th APRIL 2024

¶11

ORAL ORDER (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.):

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

By this application, the applicant seeks permission to

¶14

travel abroad i.e. to Bali, Indonesia from 9^th to 14^th April 2024; to

1/6

N. S. Chitnis

905-APL.117.2024.doc

Saudi Arabia from 15^th to 24^th April 2024 and to Maldives from 24^th to 30^th April 2024. During the said period, the applicant seeks suspension of his Look Out Circular (‘LOC’).

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court

¶20

vide several orders had permitted the applicant to travel overseas on certain terms and conditions, as stipulated in the said orders. The said orders have been annexed to the aforesaid application.

¶21

Perused the application. The applicant has been arraigned as an accused in C.R. No.111 of 2019, registered with the Kalyan Police Station (subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, Thane), for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 3 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (‘MOFA) and Section 13(1) r/w 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act). It appears that there are two C.Rs

2/6

N. S. Chitnis

905-APL.117.2024.doc

registered as against the applicant i.e. the aforesaid C.R. i.e. C.R. No.111 of 2019, registered with the Kalyan Police Station and another C.R. i.e. C.R. No.220 of 2018, also registered with the Kalyan Police Station, which C.R. has also been subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’). The offences alleged are also identical in C.R. No.220 of 2018.

¶26

It is not in dispute that this Court had permitted the applicant to travel abroad vide several orders on certain terms and conditions, stipulated in the said orders. The said orders have been annexed to the aforesaid application. It is also not in dispute that the applicant had complied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders.

¶27

Learned APP has no objection, if the application is allowed on similar terms and conditions, as imposed in the earlier orders passed by this Court.

3/6

N. S. Chitnis

905-APL.117.2024.doc

Accordingly, the application is allowed on the following

¶32

terms and conditions:

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(i) The applicant–Chintan Arvind Shah is permitted to travel abroad i.e. to Bali, Indonesia from 9^th to 14^th April 2024; to Saudi Arabia from 15^th to 24^th April 2024 and to Maldives from 24^th to 30^th April 2024;

¶35

(ii) The applicant, before his departure, to file an affidavit – cum – undertaking with the Registrar (Judicial – I), Appellate Side of this Court, giving full itinerary of his overseas travel with all details including the addresses where he would be staying, as well as the contact numbers on which he can be contacted, during the said period. A copy of the said affidavit – cum – undertaking shall also be furnished to the respondent-EOW before the applicant’s departure, by email/fax;

4/6

N. S. Chitnis

905-APL.117.2024.doc

(iii) The applicant shall in the affidavit – cum – undertaking

¶40

undertake not to apply for extension of this order until he return to this Country; and that he will return to India, on or before his date of arrival in India;

¶41

(iv) The Immigration Authorities on all points of departure, will permit the applicant to pass through immigration and to board the flight or flights, irrespective of whether the immigration system has been updated and whether the respondent-EOW has informed the Immigration Authorities or not;

¶42

(v) During the said period of travel i.e. from 9^th April to 30^th April 2024, the LOC issued against the applicant, in C.R. No.111 of 2019, registered initially with Kalyan Police Station and subsequently transferred to the EOW, Thane, shall stand suspended, during the said period;

5/6

N. S. Chitnis

905-APL.117.2024.doc

(vi) The Respondent-EOW to forthwith communicate this

¶47

order to the immigration authorities and in any event within 24 hours of this order being uploaded;

¶48

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶49

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶50

order.

¶51

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

¶52

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶53

6/6

¶54

N. S. Chitnis

Chintan Arvind Shah v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintan Arvind Shah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhtar Hasan Rizvi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Saurabh Srivastava Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Dnyaneshwar Shantaram Rode Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anantha Narayanan Iyer Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jaydrath Pralhad Kakade Vs State of Maharashtra

Vitthal Krishna Mhaske Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.