1 wp1973.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1973 OF 2010 Gabit Samaj Mumbai. ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents. Mr. S.A.Sawant with Ms. Gunjan Shah, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. Law Global for Respondent Nos. 5 to 9. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for State-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- NOVEMBER 16, 2010. P.C. 1. In terms of prayer clause (b) of this Petition, direction was sought against the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take cognizance of the complaints made by the Petitioners against the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 and to register offence against them, as also to arrest the said Respondents. It is not in dispute that FIR has already been registered and on the basis of the said FIR investigation has commenced. It appears that the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 moved the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged offence and 2 wp1973.10 they have been granted anticipatory bail. That however, should not come in the way of the police officer to continue with the investigation in accordance with law and take the same to its logical end. Besides this, no further observation may be necessary in the context of prayer clause (b). 2. Insofar as prayer clause (c) is concerned, direction is sought against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to grant police protection to the Petitioner No.2 since he is apprehending danger to his life at the hands of the Respondent No. 5 to 9. It is not in dispute that no formal application was made by the Petitioner No.2 to any authority praying for the said relief. 3. In the circumstances, we give liberty to the Petitioners to make representation to the appropriate authority for providing police protection to him in view of his apprehension about danger to his life and property. If such representation is made by the Petitioners, the appropriate authority shall take necessary decision thereon not later than four weeks from the date of presentation thereof. This observation is not an expression of opinion that the said Authority is bound to offer police protection to the Petitioner. That request will have to be considered on its own merits. 3 wp1973.10 4. In view of the above nothing survives for consideration in this Petition. The same is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners as aforesaid. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)