ABDUL GAFFUR KHAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition filed though mentioned Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to relax condition imposed in the bail for return of the passport, the prayer in the application is further to permit the petitioner to leave the Country and for that to return the passport lying in deposit as one of the conditions of the bail order passed earlier and pass such other orders in saying earlier this Court (another Bench) twice permitted the petitioner to leave the Country on his business purposes.

(2.) THE averments in the application which clearly speak not confined to the scope under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. but covering Section 482 Cr.P.C. from the prayer supra are that he is accused of the crime No. 308 of 2009 of Police Station Osmania University for the offence punishable under Sections 403 and 406 IPC along with two other individuals and thereby he is A.1 being the Managing Partner of M/s. Ham Associates, a Partnership Entity, in the business of dairy products, carrier and freights and he entered into C & F agreement with Tamilnadu Co -operative Milk Federation Limited of that State Enterprise and earlier he was Managing Partner of M/s. Ham Marketing Services and entered into C & F agreement with the then Andhra Pradesh State Dairy Development Co -operative Federation for Sector -V of Hyderabad region and the allegation is for the bulk supply of milk the amount not paid having lured to supply cheated and misappropriated the A.P. Dairy Development Co -operative Federation for the huge amounts due.

(3.) PERUSED the material on record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor who opposed giving blanket orders and saying it is contrary to the provisions of the Act, earlier not brought to the notice of the Court particularly the Circulars issued by the Ministry of External Affairs way back in 1993 under section 22 of the Indian Passport Act, 1967, and from the bar under Section 6 of the said Act and the guidelines in the Apex Courts expression in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [ : AIR 2011 SC 312] of Court can impose the condition which include prohibition to travel beyond India and deposit of the passport besides bank account etc. so that the accused must be available to face the trial which involves embezzlement of the funds of the Government Entity.