Disposed

Sukhdeo Bhaurao Ohol v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Apr 2024IA/1639/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A convicted former senior police inspector, whose appeal against Prevention of Corruption Act conviction was pending, sought leave to travel to Abu Dhabi to visit his son. The court found he had roots in India, was not a flight risk, and allowed travel for the stated period on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to travel to Abu Dhabi from 04/05/2024 to 23/05/2024, subject to filing an affidavit one week before travel giving local residential and contact details.

Sukhdeo Bhaurao Ohol Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:18171

¶2

905-ia-1639-24.doc

¶3

Urmila Ingale

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1639 OF 2024 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 521 OF 2011

¶7

SUKHDEO BHAURAO OHOL ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr. Omkar Nagwekar i/b Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar, for applicant. Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : APRIL 19, 2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Learned APP opposed the application.

¶13

The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal is admitted and now pending final hearing. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant has also renewed his passport. The applicant has filed this application for permission for travel to Abudhabi from 04/05/2024 to 23/05/2024. The applicant and his family want to visit Abudhabi where his son is residing and working with Air Arebiya as pilot. The applicant has abided

¶14

1/2

¶15

Urmila Ingale 905-ia-1639-24.doc

¶16

by the conditions imposed during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant was working as a senior police inspector at the time of his conviction. The applicant has landed property in Ahmadnagar. The appellant has roots in India and therefore, does not appear to be a flight risk. The air-tickets to and fro have been enclosed. The applicant has also been issued with a valid visa.

¶17

Learned APP opposing the application submitted that the details of the travel itinerary has not been annexed along with the application. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case, the application can be allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and is accordingly allowed.

¶18

The applicant is allowed to travel to Abudhabi from 04/05/2024 to 23/05/2024. Prior to one week of him travelling, the applicant to file an afÏdavit in this Court indicating the residential and contact details of the concerned person in Abudhabi.

¶19

The application is disposed of.

¶20

2/2

¶21

Signed by: Urmila P. Ingale Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/04/2024 17:55:25

Sukhdeo Bhaurao Ohol v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdeo Bhaurao Ohol 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

State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Stamps Mumbai City vs Pinak Bharat and Co. and Ors.

Faijuddin Shaikh @ Faij @ Aligadh Jamaluddin Bilal Vs State of Maharashtra

Sanio Pasku Kini Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sonali Deepak Gaware Vs the State of Maharashtra

Usha Popat Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Satish Kshirsagar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.