PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
LAWS(SC)-2020-10-48
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 01,2020

Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Appellant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

NAZIYA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MANSOOR ABDULLA K.S. [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-359] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ZUBAIR VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-90] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN SINGH VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN SURENDIRAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT SURESHMAL LODHA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-11-180] [REFERRED TO]
APARNA BHAT VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-48] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay[1] dated 23 July 2020. The High Court, by its order which is in appeal, declined to modify its earlier order dated 19 May 2020 so as to permit the appellant to travel to the US for a period of eight weeks from 25 July 2020 to 6 September 2020. The appellant sought the leave of the High Court to do so since as a Green Card holder, it was mandatory for him to return to the US within a stipulated period of his departure from that country, failing which the conditions for revalidation of the Green Card would not be fulfilled. The High Court declined to relax the conditions imposed by it for the grant of interim bail on the ground that an FIR has been registered against the appellant. Though the period during which the 7 appellant sought to travel abroad has lapsed, the cause survives. The appeal raises interesting issues about the interface between the fundamental right to travel ["High Court"] abroad and its curtailment under a judicial order as an incident to regulate conditions governing the grant of bail.
(3.)The genesis of the present case arises from a private complaint which was filed in January 2014 by Mehraj Rajabali Merchant in the court of the JMFC Thane alleging that the appellant has fabricated a Power of Attorney dated 19 December 2011 by forging the signature of his brother, Shalin Lokhandawalla. On 10 April 2014, the JMFC passed an order, by which he directed an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973[2] in terms of the following directions:
"1. The Kapurbavdi police station is directed to register the crime and investigate into the matter.

2. Further it is hereby directed to submit the report before the court for taking action, if any, u/s.340 of Cr.P.C."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.