Bombay High Court

YATISH SACHDEVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The Court allowed the application, granting permission to travel abroad subject to conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Yatish Sachdev, sought the Court’s permission to travel to Melbourne for business from 29‑08‑2026 to 04‑09‑2026, invoking a condition in an earlier interim protection order that required court approval for any foreign travel. The State opposed, alleging the travel could facilitate tampering with prosecution evidence and urged that the main criminal matter be expedited. The Court noted that similar travel applications had previously been granted and that the applicant had pledged to return and comply with reporting requirements. It found no reason to doubt the applicant’s return and held that the prosecution’s grievance could be addressed during the main trial. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, granting travel permission subject to itinerary disclosure and post‑return reporting conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to permission to travel abroad under the interim protection order.
Whether the prosecution’s concern about potential interference with evidence justifies denial of travel.
Whether the main criminal application should be taken up out of turn in light of the travel request.

Subjects

travel abroad permission
interim protection order
criminal application
bail conditions
prosecution evidence interference

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38438

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
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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…