Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Union Of India Tr.Insp.Of Police vs Jayesh Ramanlal Desai N.R.I. on 21 April, 2015

Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Madan B.Lokur, Kurian Joseph

     SLP(Crl.)No.8362/11                              1

     ITEM NO.6                              COURT NO.4                  SECTION IIA

                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8362/2011

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/08/2011
     in CRLWP No.2024/2011 passed by the High Court of Bombay)

     UNION OF INDIA TR.INSP.OF POLICE                                     Petitioner(s)
                                     VERSUS
     JAYESH RAMANLAL DESAI N.R.I.& ANR                                    Respondent(s)

     (With appln.(s) for permission to bring additional facts and
     documents on record and permission to file additional documents and
     stay and vacating interim order and office report)
     (For final disposal)

     Date : 21/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B.LOKUR
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

     For Petitioner(s)                  Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG
                                        Mr.P.K.Dey, Adv.
                                        Md.Khairati, Adv.
                                        Mr.B.V.Balram Das, Adv.
                                        Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)                  Mr.Varun Goswami, Adv.
                                        Mr.Peeyosh Kalra, Adv.
                                        Ms.Tanuja Basera, Adv.
                                        Mr. R. C. Kaushik, Adv.

                         Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                          O R D E R

Heard learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

We find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the Constitution of India, specially keeping in mind the fact, that Satish Kumar Yadav Date: 2015.04.23 17:10:55 IST Reason: the proceedings were initiated against the respondent approximately five years ago.

SLP(Crl.)No.8362/11 2

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. We consider it just and appropriate to allow respondent No.1 to visit Dubai on the following terms and conditions:

(i) Respondent No.1.- Jayesh Ramanlal Desai is allowed to visit Dubai for a period of 18 days.
(ii) Respondent No.1 shall furnish further security of Rs.10 lacs (Rupees ten lacs only), either in cash or one or more sureties of Indian national(s).
(iii) Respondent No.1 shall inform his departure schedule to the concerned CBI officer at least 5 days before the date of his travelling from India to Dubai.
(iv) Respondent No.1 shall report to the concerned CBI officer immediately on his arrival in India, and appear before him, within one week of his arrival.
(v) Registrar (Sessions) shall hand over the passport of respondent No.1 to him, within four days. The same shall be deposited back to the same authority, within 4 days from the date of the arrival of respondent No.1 - Jayesh Ramanlal Desai in India.
(vi) Respondent No.1 shall furnish his address at Mumbai, and also, his addresses at Dubai, to the concerned CBI officer so as to be in a position to contact him, in case his presence is necessary.
(vii) Additional security deposited by respondent No.1, in furtherance of the instant order, shall be refunded to him on his return to India within the time prescribed. In case, he does not return to India, as indicated above, the aforesaid amount would stand forfeited. This would be in addition to action that may ensue for the breach of this order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV)                                 (RENUKA SADANA)
     AR-CUM-PS                                        COURT MASTER