Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5608/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5608 of 2010
With
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5611 of 2010
With
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5610 of 2010
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
ABDUL
VAHAB ABDUL MAJID - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRAKASH JANI, APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
MS BENAZIR M HAKIM for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MA SAIYAD for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 05/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
State has preferred above-mentioned petitions challenging different
orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, by
which the petitioner is permitted to travel abroad for performing
religious right i.e. Umaah . Facts being similar can be noted
as arising in Criminal Misc. Application No.5608/2010.
In
the said case, the petitioner had applied to the learned Sessions
Judge for relaxing conditions of bail to permit him to travel abroad
for a limited period. Learned Judge granted the same in following
terms :
The
applicant is hereby permitted to obtain his Passport from Regional
Passport Authority for the purpose of pilgrimage of Umrah for the
period from 15/05.2010 to 31/05/2010.
This
order to be intimated to the concerned Police Station and the
Regional passport Authority.
Since
the accused was facing several criminal complaints, he had moved
different applications in which similar orders came to be passed. All
such orders are challenged by the State in the present group of
petitions. Learned Government Pleader Shri Prakash Jani submitted
that accused is facing several criminal charges of extremely serious
nature. Learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore, ought not to
have granted permission to travel abroad.
On
the other hand, learned advocate Shri M.A. Saiyed for the accused
contended that impugned order calls for no interference.
I
am however, of the view that permission granted to the accused was
effected for the period between 15.5.2010 and 31.5.2010 under interim
orders by this Court. These orders were kept under suspension. Period
is over. All orders have therefore, exhausted themselves.
Without
expressing any opinion on rival contentions on merits, these
petitions are disposed of holding that under the impugned orders, it
would not be open for the accused to travel abroad. If situation so
arises in future, legal questions will be examined in appropriate
proceedings.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top