1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2782 of 2009 Himanshu Rajendra Bhatt ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. M/s. Law Global for the petitioner. Ms. M.H.Mhatre-APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- November 09, 2009. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. No fault can be found with ultimate conclusion reached by the Court below in rejecting the application moved by the Petitioner herein-original accused no.5. The Court below has adverted to material on record which according to it prima- facie indicates complicity of the Petitioner only in connection with offence under Section 255 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code. So long as the charge of 255 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code has to proceed against the Petitioner, the question of 2 segregating the case of the Petitioner does not arise. Similarly, considering the request of the Petitioner to send back the matter to the Magistrate does not arise as the offence is triable by the Sessions Court. It would be a different matter if the applicant was to move the trial Court for discharge and that case is to be accepted by the trial Court. So long as the charge as framed remains against the Petitioner, the grievance of the Petitioner that the Petitioner would be deprived of his right of appeal cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the trial in that case will have to proceed before the Sessions Court alone. 3. Accordingly, this Petition should fail. The same is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to move application for discharge, if so advised which will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned decision which are only for the limited purpose of considering the request of the Petitioner to remit the matter back to the Magistrate for trial of the case. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)