50-wp-5595-25.doc Urmila Ingale IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5595 OF 2025 Harshada Vijay Shewale .. Petitioner Versus Union of India .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Girish Kulkarni, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Madhusudan Pareek, for Petitioner.  Mr. Amit Munde, SPP a/w Mr. Jai Vohra, and Mr. Shantanu Nakashe, for Respondent.  Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 19, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, Senior Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Munde, learned SPP for contesting Respondent - CBI and Ms. Newton, learned APP appearing for State. 2. The Petitioner has filed this Petition seeking direction to quash and set aside the order dated 29.09.2025. By virtue of the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge (CBI) of Sessions Court, Mumbai in CBI Special Case No.943 of 2025, copy of which is appended at Exhibit-D, page No.29 to the Petition order, the learned Special Court has recorded that notwithstanding the permission granted by this Court to her to resume her employment and visit Canada since in view of the fact that she has obtained Canadian 1 of 4 50-wp-5595-25.doc citizenship and Canadian passport. The said order restricted the travel of the Petitioner to Canada upto 03.12.2025. Since the Petitioner was in India, she was not able to travel and thereafter and hence the present Petition is filed on 10.10.2025. Though it was filed much prior to the said period before lapsing, Petition has seen light of the day today. 3. Mr. Kulkarni in his usual fair mindedness has drawn my attention to the order passed below Exhibit-67 by Special Court (CBI), Greater Mumbai on 16.11.2021 and taken me through the same as also the operative part. He would submit that the said order dated 16.11.2021 and the order dated 20.11.2023 have been duly complied with by the Petitioner and there has not been a single dereliction whatsoever. He would submit that the prospect of the Applicant qua her employment needs to be therefore protected by this Court. He would submit that it was not the Applicant but her father who is arraigned as principal Accused in the Special Case. 4. After hearing Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Munde and perusing the material placed before me, I am of the opinion that the fair course of action in the present case would be to pass an identical order to enable the Applicant to permit to go to Canada on the same terms and conditions as enumerated in the orders dated 16.11.2021 and 20.11.2023. Hence, the following order is passed:- 2 of 4 50-wp-5595-25.doc (i) The Petition stands allowed to Petitioner who is arraigned as Accused No.3 is permitted to travel to Canada / abroad for a period of upto two years from today; (ii) Petitioner to deposit additional security of an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the Special Court; (iii) Petitioner to keep informed herself about the proceedings in this case on the date-to-date basis; (iv) Petitioner on return to India shall attend the Court atleast once every six months during the said period until actual commencement of trial; (v) At the time of collecting passport, Petitioner shall furnish on Affidavit her itinerary alongwith detailed address of her residence in Canada, her contact details, her phone numbers and in the event of change in her address and phone numbers, the same shall be communicated to the Court as well as the CBI through email well in advance firstly before proceeding and after going to Canada if there is any change; 3 of 4 50-wp-5595-25.doc (vi) Petitioner shall secure her presence through Advocate; 5. In view of the above, the Petition shall stands allowed partially and disposed. Urmila Ingale [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 4 of 4 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.08.19 19:51:07 +0530