RONALDO TAMASINHA FERNADESversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                      905-ia-2590 in apeal-103-08.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2590 OF 2026
                                IN
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2008

Ronaldo T. Fernandes                            …Appellant/Applicant
     V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                        ...Respondent.
                             …………..
Mr. Karan Mehta a/w. Ms Saloni Sarguru, Mr. Ashwin Pande and Ms
Khushboo Shah and Ms Ishika Kale for the Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh Dabake, APP for the Respondent/State.
API Rohan Bagade, Unit-8 Crime Branch, Mumbai is present.
                            …………..
                          CORAM :         N.R. BORKAR, J.
                          DATE      :     18.09.2026.

P.C. :

1.       The applicant is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.103 of
2008, which he has filed against the judgment and order dated
28.10.2007 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge-3 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai at Sewree in Sessions Case
No.682 of 2006. By the said judgement and order, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the present appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three
years.


2.       By this application, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
         “(a) This Hon’ble Court may allow the Applicant to travel to
         U.K. from 01/08/2026 to 28/02/2027 as stated in aforesaid
         para Nos.9 of present Application;



Dinesh S. Sherla                       1/3
                                                     905-ia-2590 in apeal-103-08.odt


         (b) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
         may deem fit and proper.


3.       This Court by order dated dated 10.03.2008 in Criminal
Application No. 131 of 2008 while suspending the sentence and
releasing the applicant on bail has imposed certain terms and
conditions. The said order reads thus :
         .     By the present application, the Applicant / Accused
         No.3 Ronaldo Fernandes is seeking bail. The Applicant was
         convicted for the offence punishable under section 489B, C
         read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Accused
         Nos. 1, 3 and 4 came to be convicted for the offence
         punishable under section 489C and sentenced to suffer R/I.
         for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default
         R/I for one month. The learned counsel for the Applicant
         submits that in the first place the offence punishable under
         section 489C is a bailable offence and in the second place
         he submits that for more than one and a half years the
         present Applicant is in custody. The said fact is revealed
         from the operative part of the order. My attention is invited
         to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this
         Court dated 16th January, 2008, whereunder the Accused
         No.1 has been granted bail. I propose to grant the bail to
         the Applicant on the same terms and conditions. In the
         result, the present Applicant be released on bail in the sum
         of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
         The applicant shall attend DCP CID, Unit 11 once in
         a month till the hearing and final disposal of the
         Appeal. The Applicant shall also remain present at
         the time of hearing of the Appeal. Application is
         disposed of.

4.       It appears from the averments made in the present interim
application that the applicant has flouted the condition of
attendance. In paragraph No.6 of the present interim application,
the applicant has inter alias stated thus:

Dinesh S. Sherla                       2/3
                                                     905-ia-2590 in apeal-103-08.odt


         “6.  …    …    …     …     …      …    …     …    …
              …    …    …     …     …      …    …     …    …
        The Applicant states that initially the Applicant pursued his
        career in catering services and working as waiter at
        London, U.K. and since the year 2022 he started working as
        hourly basis cashier at Pollar Express, Gas Station/petrol
        pump 2340-Black Lock, Houston, Texas, USA-77080, and
        was working there continuously till February, 2026.”

5.       Though it appears that this Court by order dated 14.7.2026
has relaxed the condition of attendance, however, the fact
remains that the applicant has travelled abroad without seeking
permission of this Court when the condition of attendance was in
existence. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am
not inclined to entertain the present interim application. Hence,
the Interim Application is rejected.


6.       Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2008 along with connected
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1205 of 2007 and 1316 of 2007 be listed for
final hearing on 26.10.2026.

                                               [N.R.BORKAR, J.]




Dinesh S. Sherla                       3/3