High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 04 BOM CK 0121

Smt. Shaila Parveen vs State of Maharashtra, Through the Office Incharge Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati

Bombay High Court · Decided on 27 April 2016 · Citation: (2016) ALLMRCri 2630

HON’BLE JUDGES
Z.A. Haq, J.
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Application (Apl) No. 188 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 406 words

Z.A. Haq, J.(Oral) - Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3.

The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting her application by which the applicant prayed that the Investigating Officer be directed to return her passport which is deposited in compliance of the directions given by the Sessions Court while granting bail.

The applicant is being prosecuted along with co-accused in Case No.58 of 2015 pending before the Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is sister of husband of the complainant. The applicant is married to Dr. Abdul Wahid who is permanent resident of Hajipur, Post : Ghosipur, District : Meerut (U.P.) who at present is working as Assistant Professor in Jazzaan University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The applicant is pursuing her Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering Department, Jamia Milia Islamia (Central) University, New Delhi.

4.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the applicant to deposit her passport with the Investigating Officer and in compliance with the order, the applicant deposited her passport with the Investigating Officer. As the applicant intends to go to Saudi Arabia with her daughter to stay with her husband during Summer-2016 Vacations, the applicant filed application before the Magistrate praying that the Investigating Officer be directed to return the passport. This application is rejected by the impugned order and being aggrieved in the matter, the applicant has filed the present application.

5.

Considering the background of the case and the social status of the applicant, in my view, the following order would sub-serve the interests of justice :

i) The applicant shall give the proposed tour programme to the Investigating Officer.

ii) On receiving the proposed tour programme, the Investigating Officer shall return the passport to the applicant, immediately.

iii) The applicant is permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia.

iv) In addition to the security given by the applicant as per sthe order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the applicant shall furnish P. R. Bond for Rs.Fifty Thousand and one solvent surety in the like amount before the passport is handed over to the applicant.

v) After returning from her tour to Saudi Arabia the applicant shall deposit the passport with the Investigating Officer.

6.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.