1 cri-wp-1349-10.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2010 Mr. Amber A. Mufti ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr. Aniket Vagal for petitioner. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for State. Mr. D.J. Khambata, ASG for respondent no.2. Ms. N.P., Punde for respondent nos.3 to 5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 28, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Vagal the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Khambata, the learned Additional Solicitor General appears for respondent no.2. Ms. Pune the learend counsel appears for respondent nos.3 to 5. Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP appears for the State. 2 cri-wp-1349-10.doc 2. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for appropriate action to be directed against the respondent nos. 3 to 5 for providing false information and misleading the court and thereby causing his detention in jail, on any terms and conditions as this court may deem fit. 3. The main contention of the petitioner was that he was arrested on 25/9/2009 and his bail applications filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as before the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to be rejected as in the reply submitted by the DRI, it was pointed out that he was arrested in two earlier cases under investigation by the very same agency. After he was released on bail on or about 23/12/2009 he submitted an application under the RTI and received a reply pointing out that the statement, “he was arrested in two earlier cases” was made by inadvertence and that he was not arrested prior to the arrest on 25/9/2009. This is a sole basis of the petition filed before us. 4. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Shri Chetan Lama, Assistant Director, DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai and we have perused the same. 3 cri-wp-1349-10.doc 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner we have gone through the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting his bail applications and none of these orders are based on the alleged statement that the petitioner was arrested in two earlier cases under investigation by the DRI. It is also to be noted that in the affidavit-in- reply filed by Shri Chetan Lama, it has been pointed out that the statement relied upon by the petitioner was sought to be withdrawn by a specific application. 6. In our opinion, this is a frivolous petition filed and it deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 7. Petition is rejected summarily. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)