IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 913 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3508 OF 2026 IN ABA/1766/2025 YATISH SACHDEV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2966 OF 2026 IN ABA/1766/2025 ASHISH MOHAPATRA AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Mr. Anuj Ajay Fulfagar, Advocate for Applicant WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3831 OF 2025 IN ABA/1766/2025 ABHIJIT ASHOK MANDHANA VERSUS ASHISH MOHAPATRA AND OTHERS … Mr. Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for Applicant Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- ORDER BELOW CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3508 OF 2026 1. This application is filed seeking permission to travel abroad, as per the 913 APPLN 3508.2026.odt 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:38438 details mentioned in the application, for the period from 29.08.2026 to 04.09.2026, to Melbourne, for business purposes. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that interim protection came to be granted to the applicant and others by order dated 07.10.2025. Condition (v) of the operative order requires the applicant to obtain permission of this Court before leaving India. He further submits that, for business purposes, the applicant is required to travel abroad and that, on two previous occasions, similar applications were filed and allowed by this Court. In support of his submission, he refers to the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 4717/2025. He, therefore, submits that there is no reason to believe that the applicant would not return to India. 3. Learned APP opposed the application by submitting that the applicant is attempting to interfere with the prosecution evidence and that efforts are being made to prepare duplicate laboratory records. Learned Advocate for the informant also raises a grievance with regard to the interim relief granted to the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant, along with the co-accused, is enjoying interim relief and, therefore, the hearing of the main application may be expedited. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court granting interim protection to the applicant, he is required to seek permission of this Court for travelling abroad. Even on previous occasions, 913 APPLN 3508.2026.odt 2 of 3 such requests were granted by this Court. The orders dated 24.12.2025 and 13.03.2026 support the submission of the learned Advocate for the applicant. The applicant has undertaken to return to India. This Court has no reason to believe that, if permitted to travel abroad, the applicant would not return to the country. 5. As regards the grievance raised by the prosecution, the same can be considered at the time of hearing of the main application on its merits. This Court finds no reason or justification to take up the main application out of turn. The said application shall, therefore, be taken up in its due course. 6. Suffice it to say that the applicant has made out a case for grant of permission to travel abroad. Hence, the following order: ORDER [A] Criminal Application No. 3508 of 2026 is allowed [B] The applicant is permitted to travel to Melbourne for business purposes from 29.08.2026 to 04.09.2026. [C] The applicant shall furnish his entire programme of travel/itinerary to the Investigating Officer alongwith telephone/mobile numbers on which the applicant would be available and the place of his stay in Melbourne. [D] After his return to the country, the applicant shall attend the concerned police station on 14.09.2026 between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. 7. Parties to act upon authenticated copy this order. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 913 APPLN 3508.2026.odt 3 of 3