IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8296 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
ANIL H.LAD S/O HEEROHI LAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, 1ST MAIN 1ST CROSS, R.M.V.EXTENSION, DOLLARS COLONY, BANGALORE-560 094.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY CBI / ACB, BANGALORE-560 002. REP. BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.P.P.) * * * THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439(1)(b) CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELAX/MODIFY THE BAIL CONDITION NO.5 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.105/2014 BY THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2015 ON THE FILE OF XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2017 AND 17.10.2017 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.105/2014 AND PERMIT HIM TO VISIT CHINA IN BETWEEN 25.10.2017 TO 04.11.2017 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned Spl.P.P., for the respondent – CBI.
This petition is filed to relax or modify the bail condition No.5 passed in Spl.C.C.No.105/2014 by order dated 27.07.2015 on the file of XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore City (CCH-47) and consequently, sought to set aside the order dated 06.10.2017 and 17.10.2017 passed in Spl.C.C.No.105/2014 and permit the petitioner/accused to visit China in between 25.10.2017 to 04.11.2017 by allowing the petition on said terms and condition in the ends of justice.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has co-operated the Investigating Agency and he has not violated the conditions of the bail order. He being the business man, it is necessary for him to visit China in connection with the business transaction for the said period.
3. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-CBI made the submission that as the details and the required information is not given, the Special Judge justified in rejecting the said request. He also made the submission that if he is allowed to go to aboard, it will affect the investigation. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to grant with the relief that he has sought in this petition.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and also the documents produced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with the petition and also perused the bail order.
5. It is mentioned that the petitioner is the sitting MLA and also he is a business man. In connection with business transaction, it is necessary for him to visit China in between the dates 25.10.2017 to 4.11.2017. He also co-operated the Investigating Agency.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to go abroad in between the period 25.10.2017 to 04.11.2017 and on 07.11.2017 he has to appear before the concerned Special Court.
Sd/- JUDGE PB