Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4809/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4809 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1692 of 2008
=========================================================
DIPAKKUMAR
MUKUNDLAL SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KB ANANDJIWALA for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR ZUBIN F BHARDA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR. R.C.
KODEKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR VD PARGHI for Respondent(s)
: 2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 05/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1) The
applicant, through this application, has prayed to direct the
respondent no.2 to issue passport to the applicant and also to permit
the applicant to leave India for six months.
2) Heard
learned counsel Mr. Zubeen F. Bharda appearing for the applicant and
Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the respondent no.1-State and Mr. V.D. Parghi
for respondent no.2.
3) Mr.
Bharda, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that the son
of the applicant resides in State of California, United States of
America, since last seven years and the daughter-in-law of the
applicant is expecting to deliver a child any time after 18th
July, 2011. The son of the applicant has, therefore, invited the
applicant and his wife to U.S.A. so that they can help their son and
daughter-in-law in a foreign country where they are residing alone.
The applicant is, therefore, desirous to visit U.S.A. He has also
contended that the applicant was a government servant and all his
dues are friezed with the Government. He has also contended that the
applicant is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed upon
the applicant while allowing the present application. He has further
contended that the appeal being Criminal Appeal No.1692 of 2008 is of
the year 2008 and looking to the backlog, there is no likelihood that
appeal of the applicant be heard in near future. He, therefore,
prayed that present application may be allowed by directing the
respondent no.2 to issue passport to the applicant and to permit the
applicant to leave India for a period of six months, pending hearing
of above Appeal.
4) As
against this, Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
has submitted that the applicant is convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has also submitted that
appeal of the applicant is likely to be heard in near future. He has
further submitted that the applicant is on bail pending the appeal.
5) Heard
learned counsel for the parties and also perused papers produced
before me. It appears from the papers that son and daughter-in-law
of the applicant are residing in U.S.A. and they are expecting a
child in near future. It appears from the perusal of the papers that
the grounds stated in the application are genuine and therefore, I am
of the opinion that application is required to be allowed. Hence,
application is partly allowed. The respondent no.2-Regional Passport
Officer is directed to consider application form of the applicant
for issuance of Passport and after considering the same, he may issue
Passport to the applicant.
After
receipt of the Passport, the applicant is directed to approach before
the trial Court concerned to obtain necessary permission to leave
India. The trial Court concerned shall decide the application, which
is to be filed by the applicant, on its own merits and in accordance
with law as well as in view of the observation made by this Court in
the case of Sardarkhan Vs. State of Gujarat reported
in 1991 (1) GLH 42.
Orders
accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.
Direct
Service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
Vahid
Top