32-IA2925-2026INAPEAL140-2023.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2925 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2026 Jagdishprasad Mohanlal Joshi ...Applicant- Appellant Versus Union Of India And Ors. …Respondents Mr. Chandansingh Shekhawat, and Sanskruti H., i/b Parinam Law Associates, for the Applicant in IA/2925/2023. Mr. Pradip Gharat, Spl. PP, for Respondent No.1 – UOI. Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for State – Respondent No.2. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application the Applicant - Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 140/2023 seeks permission to travel to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), for a period of seven days from 26th September, 2026 to 3rd October, 2026, and thereafter to Kathmandu, Nepal, for a period of seven days from 4th October, 2026 to 11th October, 2026 and also seeks a direction to return the passport to the Applicant and permission to apply for obtaining a Visa to undertake the foreign travel. 3. By a judgment and order dated 9th January, 2023, the 1/5 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.05 13:07:54 +0530 32-IA2925-2026INAPEAL140-2023.DOC learned Special Judge (‘MCOC’), Greater Bombay, has convicted the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 344, 363, and 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the Penal Code’), and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘the MCOC Act’). For the major offence punishable under MCOC Act, the Applicant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of 10 years. 4. By an order 10th July, 2023, this Court suspended the sentence and enlarged the Applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal on certain conditions, including that the Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 5. The Applicant has moved this application seeking permission to travel to Dubai (UAE) to meet his daughter and grandchildren, who reside in Dubai (UAE), and to Kathmandu, Nepal, for bona fide business purposes. The Applicant has been invited by a Business House in Nepal to provide guidance in relation to Pan Masala Blending and Production Operations. Documents are annexed to the application to substantiate the assertions in the application. 6. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the 2/5 32-IA2925-2026INAPEAL140-2023.DOC Applicant was permitted to travel abroad in the past, and he has not abused the permission granted by the Court. The Applicant has complied with all the conditions. 7. Mr. Gharat, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State, opposed the prayers in the application. 8. The record indicates that, by an order dated 16th July, 2025 in IA/2435/2025, this Court had permitted the Applicant to travel to Nepal, Vietnam, and UAE for a period of about one month. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Applicant has breached any of the conditions subject to which he was permitted to travel abroad. The Applicant appears to have roots in India to bring him back to India. The reasons ascribed by the Applicant necessitating the travel abroad appear to be bona fide. 9. Right to travel abroad, which is construed to be a facet of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not confined to emergency travel. Such right can be exercised even for familial purposes. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and others1, wherein the following observations were made: “5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic 1 2019 SC OnLine SC 2048. 3/5 32-IA2925-2026INAPEAL140-2023.DOC human right for it nourishes independent and self- determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958) which are as follows: “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.” 10. The aforesaid being the position in law, this Court does not find any impediment in allowing the Applicant to travel abroad. 11. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (I) The application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c) subject to the following conditions: (a) The Applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the investigating officer, on which he would be available during his stay away from India. (b) The Applicant shall furnish the details of his immovable properties located in State of Maharashtra which are owned by him to the investigating officer. (c) After return from Dubai (UAE) and Kathmandu, Nepal, the 4/5 32-IA2925-2026INAPEAL140-2023.DOC Applicant shall immediately report to the Investigating Officer and shall continue to comply with the condition of attendance. (d) After return from Dubai (UAE) and Kathmandu, Nepal, the Applicant shall immediately redeposit his passport with the Special Court. The application stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 5/5