1 cri-appln.40-11 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.40 of 2011 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3359 OF 2010 Simpreet Singh ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents And Prabhakar Vinayakrao Deshmukh ..Applicant Mr. Nitin Pradhan i/b. Ms. S.D. Khot for Applicant. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.P.A. Pol, P.P., for the Respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 1st February, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Pradhan with Ms. Khot, the learned Counsel for the applicant, who seeks to intervene as party to the Criminal Writ Petition No.3349 of 2010. 2. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai Branch, has registered an F.I.R. on 29th January, 2011 under Section 120-B, 429, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant contends that his name has been 2 cri-appln.40-11 unnecessarily dragged in and he has been impleaded as one of the accused in the said F.I.R. It is also submitted by Mr. Pradhan that the applicant has become a victim of an adverse media publicity and, therefore, he deserves to be heard in the Writ Petition. 3. We are not inclined to entertain such an application. A copy of the F.I.R. registered with the C.B.I., has been placed before us and it is for the C.B.I., to follow the due process of law in the course of investigation into the F.I.R. It is well established that the accused in an F.I.R. has no right of being heard during the stage of investigation. It will be premature today for us to accept the contentions of the applicant that he is being made as a victim or that he is being unnecessarily dragged into the controversy. 4. Hence the application is rejected. This order will not have any bearing on the applicant’s legal rights. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)