14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2026 PETITIONER :- Abhishek S/o Kishor Pande, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, Permanent R/o Plot No.9, Khamla Road, Near N.I.T. Garden, Gajanan Dham, Khamla, Nagpur- 440025. Temporary R/o Dimbeek 22, Mulheim 45470, Germany, Mobile No. +49162595600, Email- abhishekahhi@gmail.com ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur. 2) The State of Maharashtra, through Economic Offence Wing, Police Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 3) Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, Rep. By its Commissioner (Immigration), East Block VIII, Level V, Sector-1, RK Puram, New Delhi – 110022. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.P. Sonwane, a/w Aaquid Mirza and Amit Thakur, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kolhe, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. Mr. K.A. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 08/10/2026 2026:BHC-NAG:13623 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 2 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner herein thereby praying for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned trial Court, by issuing a writ, order or direction, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the two applications filed by the petitioner one for cancellation of the lookout Circular issued by the Investigating Officer and other for permission to travel abroad by relaxing the condition imposed upon by the trial Court while releasing the petitioner on bail vide its order dated 31.07.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sonwane, submits that Crime No.833 of 2025 was registered by the complainant, Ganesh Chakkarwar, against the main accused, Dr. Sameer Paltewar and 16 other accused persons. The petitioner who was accused No.6 in the said crime, was alleged of running a shell company which was shown to have paid certain hefty amounts by the main accused, Dr. Sameer Paltewar, for digital marketing and advertising of the Hospital Meditrina, of which the main accused, 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 3 Dr. Sameer Paltewar, was one of the partners along with the complainant, Ganesh Chakkarwar. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, being one of the co-accused, is a resident of Germany as his wife is serving in Germany as a Scientist with Max Planck Institute. The petitioner was in Germany and hence could not attend the calls of the Investigating Officer though could not co-operate with the investigation initially. All other co-accused were released on anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, except the main accused, Dr. Sameer Paltewar. He further submits that as the petitioner was contacted by the Investigating Officer on the WhatsApp platform, the applicant/petitioner had cooperated and replied with all the queries which were made by the Investigating Officer of the Economic Offence Wing. The petitioner has also provided the necessary documents pertaining to the work carried out by him and his company, namely Abstract IT Group, which was entrusted with the work of digital marketing, consultation and advertising by Meditrina Hospital under an agreement entered into between Dr. Sameer Paltewar (partner of Meditrina Hospital) and the present petitioner, Abhishek Pande. The screenshots of WhatsApp chats are also relied to show that the petitioner has, time 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 4 and again, cooperated with the Investigating Officer and supplied the necessary documents whenever sought for by him. He further submits that the chargesheet came to be filed in the month of November, 2025. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, even though the petitioner could not remain present in India chargesheet was filed against him. He further submits that after filing of the chargesheet no notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to remain present in India for presentation of the chargesheet or for any other purpose. 6. The mother of the petitioner was suffering from serious ailment and hence the petitioner was required to travel to India. The petitioner, upon reaching New Delhi Airport on 23.07.2026, was informed about a lookout Circular against him and apprehended by the Bureau of Immigration officials along with his family. The Economic Offence Wing, Nagpur, had then arrived at the airport and took custody of the petitioner and brought him to Nagpur. The petitioner had thereafter applied for grant of bail. The prayer for granting police custody remand by the prosecution came to be rejected and the petitioner was sent to MCR and the initial bail application came to be rejected. The petitioner had thereafter filed a regular bail application and the said application came to be 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 5 allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31.07.2026. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the application for regular bail and releasing the petitioner on bail, has imposed one of the conditions of not leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the Court without permission of the Court. The learned counsel further submits that the mother of the petitioner expired on the same day i.e. on 31.07.2026. The petitioner’s wife is working in Germany and the petitioner is also taking a German Integration Course to apply for the jobs there. The petitioner has thus moved an application for traveling abroad before the learned trial Court and for cancellation of the lookout circular issued by the Investigating Officer. However, the learned trial Court without taking into consideration the difficulties and hardships faced by the petitioner, simply rejected the application only on the ground that there is an apprehension that the petitioner may not attend the trial. Both the applications filed one for the relaxation of the condition and permission to travel abroad and another for cancellation of the lookout Circular, came to be rejected, which is under challenge before this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sonwane, submits that the petitioner is ready to show his bonafides to allay 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 6 the apprehensions that he may not attend the trial and may flee away from the ends of justice. The only allegation as against the petitioner in the entire scam is of Rs.16 crores attributed to the main accused, Dr. Sameer Paltewar, is that the company of the petitioner, namely Abstract IT Group, was paid an amount of Rs.16,87,000/- as could be seen from the chargesheet. The aforesaid amount, according to the prosecution, was fake amount shown only with an intention to cheat the company i.e. Meditrina Hospital, by the main accused, Dr. Sameer Paltewar. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, time and again, even after his arrest. Being present in India, the petitioner has already furnished whatever documents were required from him to the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is further ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court while granting permission to travel abroad or cancellation of the look out Circular. However, the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration and passed the order mechanically without taking into consideration the hardships faced by the petitioner and his family, who was suddenly taken into custody at Delhi Airport without any information to remain present. The impugned orders therefore unjust, illegal, arbitrary and need to be set aside by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 7 9. Mr. Sonwane, upon instructions, further makes a statement that the petitioner has filed an affidavit thereby stating that the petitioner is ready to deposit the cash amount of Rs.6,87,000/- to show his bonafides before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is further ready to give the original sale deed of the immovable property as a surety of Plot No.1, Khasra No.73/2, Mouza Hudkeshwar, with the trial Court to assure that the petitioner may not abscond and would remain present as and when so directed by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel, upon instructions, further submits that the petitioner undertakes to remain present on the date of filing of the supplementary chargesheet, if any, on the date of framing of the charge, on the date of evidence if the presence of the petitioner is required and also on the date on which the case is fixed by the trial Court for recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner further undertakes to remain present at the time of pronouncement of judgment. Apart from the aforesaid dates, whenever the learned trial Court directs that it is necessary for the petitioner to remain present, the petitioner undertakes to remain present before the learned trial Court. 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 8 10. The learned counsel further submits that taking into consideration the undertaking given by the petitioner as well as the bonafides shown in depositing the amount of Rs.6,87,000/- and the original sale deed papers as a surety to the learned trial Court for allaying the fears of abscondence as expressed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order rejecting the application, the application may be allowed, the lookout Circular may be quashed and set aside as well as the petitioner may be permitted to travel abroad by relaxing the condition imposed in the order dated 31.07.2026 while granting bail to the petitioner. 11. As Against this, Ms Kolhe, learned A.P.P. strongly opposes the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of Germany and despite of certain communications to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to remain present and cooperate with the investigation. There was a huge scam unearthed on the complaint of the complainant, wherein the main accused, Dr. Sameer Paltewar, is accused of siphoning off an amount of above Rs.16 crores from the company. Certain fake accounts were created and huge amounts were paid to such companies who were only shown to be existing on paper. However, no such work was done either by the company run by the petitioner or the other companies 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 9 as mentioned in the chargesheet. The petitioner is a resident of Germany. The entire family of the petitioner is staying at Germany. The investigation in the present crime is still going on and the forensic audit is being undertaken. The presence of the petitioner is thus necessary for completing the investigation. If the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad, he may flee away from the ends of justice and may not be available for trial. The lookout Circular issued by the Investigating Officer was only for the purpose of ensuring his presence before the trial Court. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference of this Court for quashing of the lookout Circular or for permission to travel abroad. The application is devoid of substance and merit and is thus liable to be rejected. 12. I have gone through the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned Courts below, rejecting both the applications of canceling of the lookout Circular and permission to travel abroad. I have also gone through the chargesheet filed by the prosecution in the present case and the order granting bail to the petitioner dated 31.07.2026, wherein the condition for prohibition to travel abroad except with the permission of the trial Court is imposed. I have also gone through the affidavit undertaking filed by the petitioner. The record shows that the petitioner and his wife are residing at 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 10 Germany. The wife of the petitioner is working as a Scientist at the Max Planck Institute at Germany. The detailed address of the petitioner and his family working at Germany was already provided to the Investigating Officer, as could be seen from the chat messages exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent. Even the present record also shows that the petitioner has provided the necessary details of the residence both there in Germany as well as here in India. The petitioner has deep roots in the society and his entire family is residing at Khamla, Nagpur, which contains his father and brother’s family. The petitioner has given an undertaking to deposit an amount of Rs.6,87,000/- before the learned trial Court to show his bonafides. The petitioner has further undertaken to deposit the original sale deed before the learned trial Court of Plot No.1, Khasra No.73/2, Mouza Hudkeshwar, Nagpur to show his bonafides and to dispel the fears that the petitioner will go absconding and will not be available for trial. The petitioner has also produced the documents showing the letters and communication exchanged between the wife and the hospital where his wife is working, which shows that the presence of the petitioner and his family members is necessary in Germany. The Investigating Officer present in the Court informs that the entire investigation is over 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 11 except for the forensic audit. Thus, the entire investigation was completed and the chargesheet was already filed in the month of November, 2025. The Investigating Officer further informs that upon application of the petitioner, the passport of the petitioner is also handed over back to the petitioner. 13. Thus, it appears that the purpose for issuing the lookout Circular by the Investigating Officer is already served. The condition is imposed by the learned trial Court that the petitioner shall not travel abroad except with the permission of the Court. The petitioner has already given an undertaking to remain present on the dates of filing of the supplementary chargesheet, if any, framing of the charge, the evidence if required and the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has further undertaken to remain present as and when so directed by the trial Court that it is necessary for the petitioner to remain present. The petitioner is only attributed with siphoning off an amount of Rs.16,87,000/- towards the works to be carried out by his company, namely Abstract IT Group. The petitioner has shown his bonafides to deposit an amount of Rs.6,87,000/- before the trial Court and also to produce the original sale deed of an immovable property as security to the trial Court. 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 12 14. Thus, taking into consideration the bonafides shown by the petitioner and the undertakings given by the petitioner, I am inclined to exercise discretion in the extraordinary jurisdiction and hence pass the following order:- ORDER (a) The writ petition is allowed. (b) Both the impugned orders dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned trial Court below, rejecting the application for permission to travel abroad as well as rejecting the application for cancellation of the lookout Circular, are hereby quashed and set aside. (c) The application for permission to travel abroad as well as the application for relief to withdraw/deletion of lookout Circular issued against the petitioner are allowed. (d) The petitioner is permitted to travel abroad subject to depositing the amount of Rs.6,87,000/- and depositing the original sale deed of Plot No.1, Khasra No.73/2, Mouza Hudkeshwar, Nagpur, before the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks. (e) Upon fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions within a period of two weeks, the direction issued hereinabove 14.WP.718.2026 Judgment.odt 13 regarding cancellation of the lookout Circular issued by the Investigating Officer shall come into effect and the lookout Circular shall stand cancelled. (f) The petitioner is permitted to travel abroad along with his family upon an undertaking to be given to the trial Court that the petitioner shall remain present as and when it is necessary and so directed by the trial Court to remain present. (g) Failure on the part of the petitioner to remain present as and when directed, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders, including orders for forfeiting of Rs.6,87,000/- deposited by the petitioner and for attachment of immovable property as shown in original sale deed papers deposited by petitioner. (h) The learned counsel appearing for the Bureau of Immigration is directed to communicate this order to the Bureau of Immigration. (i) With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 17:24:52