Bombay High Court
Sushma Raman vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... on 6 August, 2019
Author: Bharati H.Dangre
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H.Dangre
1/3 905 WP-3803-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3803 of 2019
Sushma Raman .. Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation
EOW,Mumbai and anr .. Respondents
...
Mr.Satish Maneshinde i/b Anandini
Fernandes for the
petitioner.
Mr.K.V. Saste, APP for the State.
Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for respondent no.1.
CORAM: SHRI RANJIT MORE &
SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
DATED : 6th AUGUST 2019 P.C:-
1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2 The respondent no.1 registered an FIR bearing RC No.0682015E0006 in the year 2015 against M/s.Sabrang Communications and Publishing Pvt. Ltd and its Directors, Javed Anand, Teesta Setalvad and Peshimam Gulam Mohammed for an offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 35 & 37 read with Sections 3(1)(b), 11 and 19 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2019 03:43:13 ::: 2/3 905 WP-3803-19.doc 3 The above FIR is investigated into and charge-sheet is filed against the accused mentioned in the FIR as well as the petitioner and it is numbered as Case No.1060/PW/2016 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai.
4 The petitioner is a person of Indian Origin and now a citizen of United States of America presently residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition.
5 The petitioner wants to submit herself to the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate before whom the criminal case is pending. The petitioner learned that Look Out Circular (LOC) is issued against her and therefore, by way of present petition, she has claimed directions to the respondent to withdraw the LOC against her, or in the alternative, seek a writ to quash the same.
6 Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on instructions makes a statement that respondent no.1 CBI has not directed issuance of LOC and she makes a statement that the CBI do not propose to arrest the petitioner. She also submitted that even if LOC is issued against the petitioner, at the instance of another agency, in that case also, the same would be valid for a period of one year.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2019 03:43:13 :::
3/3 905 WP-3803-19.doc
7 Mr.Maneshinde, learned counsel for the petitioner,
at this stage, makes a statement that except the subject criminal case, there is no case pending against the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner is travelling to India tonight and she is reaching India tomorrow and she will appear before the learned Magistrate on 9th August 2019. Statement accepted.
8 In the light of above circumstances, we defer the hearing of the petition to 22nd August 2019. To be kept on Supplementary Board.
(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2019 03:43:13 :::