Partly allowed

Giridhar B. Gajabe v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Mar 2024APL/175/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the bail condition prohibiting the applicant from leaving India. The court allowed travel abroad with prior intimation of itinerary and residence, but required specific permission for trips exceeding three months and regular trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Condition restricting departure from India modified to allow travel with intimation, requiring court permission only for trips exceeding three months.

Giridhar B. Gajabe Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:12437

¶2

PMB 14.apl.175-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.175 OF 2023

¶5

GIRIDHAR B. GAJABE ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶6

Adv. Aditya Andhorikar i/b. Adv. Nehal Desale for the applicant.

¶7

Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the State. PSI-S. B. Ithape, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : MARCH 14, 2024

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶12

2. By this application the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the trial Court imposing condition that the applicant shall shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court is under challenge. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is working as a Deputy Registrar at SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai and he is working in the said university since 1998. The offence was registered against the applicant on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant with Azad Maidan Police Station

¶13

1/3

¶14

PMB 14.apl.175-23.doc

¶15

under Sections 354, 509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘IPC’ for short).

¶16

3. The application is opposed by learned APP.

¶17

4. The charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail. The applicant has travelled abroad on two occasions by seeking permission of the trial Court and has abided by the conditions. In the application it is stated that the applicant has two daughters who are both residing in New Zealand since 2017. It is stated that the applicant often visits his daughters. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on two occasions after registration of the complaint the applicant has travelled abroad and returned back. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and the subsequent events as noticed hereinabove, though the application is opposed by learned APP, I am of the opinion that the condition can be modified as the applicant does not appear to be a flight risk. The condition of the applicant not leaving India without prior permission of the Court is modified as under :-

¶18

2/3

¶19

PMB 14.apl.175-23.doc

¶20

(a) The applicant shall intimate the trial Court as well as the Investigating Officer of the itinerary and travel details and duration while travelling abroad. If the applicant wants to leave India for a period of more than three months, the applicant shall seek permission of the trial Court.

¶21

(b) The applicant shall furnish address of his place of residence and contact details while residing abroad.

¶22

(c) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶23

5. The application is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶25

3/3

¶26

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/03/2024 19:56:05

Giridhar B. Gajabe v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giridhar B. Gajabe 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

Shashank Ramchandra Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Haridas Nivrutti Rajguru Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaydeep Jitendra Nagrecha and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Bhimrao Mullappa Vani Vs State of Maharashtra

Santosh Haribhau Barhmne Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krutik Manojbhai Patel Vs the Union of India and Anr.