SUNIL RAMESHBHAI RAPANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main application is moved by the applicant for quashment of the FIR being RC0292016A0017 of 2016 registered with CBI/ ACB Gandhinagar and further and consequential proceedings thereto qua the applicant with an interim prayer to permit the applicant to travel to Dubai for business purpose for a period of 18 weeks from the date of his departure from India.

(2.) Mr. Marshal, learned Senior advocate with Mr. Daifraz Havewalla, learned advocate for the applicant, referring to the FIR dtd. 29/12/2016 submitted that there is no allegation of any public money being involved. The applicant had cooperated the investigation and had appeared before the authority 8 to 9 times. The requisite documents, as asked, were provided by communication dtd. 19/3/2021 and necessary clarification had been given for the rest of the documents. Mr. Marshal submitted that chargesheet has already been filed. Referring to the order dtd. 19/1/2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 96 of 2021 along with Order on 22/3/2021 and order dtd. 17/6/2021 and further referring to the communication dtd. 10/8/2021 along with resident permit of UAE Dubai, which is regarding the partnership of HFM Global General Trading LLC, Mr. Marshal contended that the applicant is in partnership of mining project and his presence is necessary for continuation of the business. Mr. Marshal , referring to the order of Special Judge, C.B.I. (Court No.5) at Ahmedabad, stated that the non-bailable warrant against the present applicant has been cancelled by the Court with the condition that the applicant has to regularly attend the trial and applicant was also directed to deposit the current pass-port and the cancelled pass- ports (if any). Mr. Marshal submitted that the trial will take its own time to conclude and petitioner is bound by the condition laid down by the Court and has assured the trail Court to regularly attend the trial.

(3.) Countering the applicant, Mr. R.C.Kodekar relying on the reply affidavit of respondent CBI submitted that though the applicant has joined investigation but had remained non-cooperative and has not disclosed the documents as stated in the reply affidavit. Mr. Kodekar submitted that present applicant if permitted to travel Dubai then there are all likelihood that he may not return and that would hamper the trial.