IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 187 of 2026 With R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 188 of 2026 ==========================================================

PARAG RAMESHCHANDRA GATHANI Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, GANDHINAGAR & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ANSHIN H DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR PARTH CONTRACTOR(7150) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent No. 1 in CR.RA 187/26 MR RAJESH K KANANI for the Respondent No. 1 in CR.RA 188/26 MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 12/03/2026

COMMON ORDER

1. Prayers in both the applications are to quash and set aside the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in CBI Criminal Misc. Application no.3537/2025 (Criminal Revision Application no.187/2026) and CBI Criminal Misc. Application no. 3565/2025 (Criminal Revision Application no.188/2026) aggrieved by the restrictive limit of three years for the passport, where prayer was for the renewal of the passport.

2. Mr. Anshin H. Desai, learned Senior Advocate submitted that there has been no bail condition of surrendering the passport nor any restriction was laid down on the applicant for any travel for business purpose abroad. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai submitted that the necessity to move the Court arose since the booklet of the passport with the pages got exhausted because of the endorsement of the passport authority due to the travel of the applicant and thereby, the applicant had no other option but to move for renewal of his passport. Mr. Desai submitted that the applicant is aggrieved since the Court has restricted the validity of the passport upto 3 years, where considering the business of the applicant and his requirement to travel abroad for business purpose, the Court ought to have granted the validity of the passport for a period of 10 years in accordance to the mandatory provision of Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.

2.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai further submitted that a fixed deposit to the value of Rs.3.80 crores belonging to the applicant has been attached by the authority concerned and hence, necessary surety is in the hands of the Enforcement Directorate.

3. Countering the arguments, learned counsel Mr. R.C. Kodekar and learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Kanani for the respondent no.1 in respective matters, submitted that the Court concerned had taken into consideration the provisions of law as well as the facts of the case to limit issuance of the passport for a period of three years. The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties submitted that it is not the case that the Court has rejected the prayer and the validity period of three years is in accordance to the notification / circular of the Ministry of External Affairs dated 25.8.1993. The learned advocates appearing for the respondent no.1 submitted that the applicant’s rights have been protected by the Court through the order and if at all any necessity arise, he would have the right to again approach the Court for renewal.

4. Countering the arguments with regard to condition of surrendering and redepositing the applicant’s renewed passport with the Court immediately on receiving it, the learned advocates appearing for the respondent no.1 submitted that the Court has invoked its own discretionary authority to ensure that the applicant would remain present throughout the trial and if at all the applicant would be required to travel abroad, upon reaching the Court for seeking permission, the Court would, if it finds it appropriate having regard to the facts of the case and the reasons assigned, hand over the passport to the applicant for the purpose of such travel.

5. The application before the Principal Distri