1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No. 273 of 2009 . Rajesh Shashikant Nanawati .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Mrs.Seema S. Singh for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 7th November, 2009 P.C. : 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that after FIR No.45 of 2008 is registered for the offences punishable under Section 484, 387, 342, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, under the Arms Act and the Bombay Police Act with the Deccan Gymkhana Police Station at Pune, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 failed to take appropriate steps as required under the Cr.P.C. and they did not take further steps to arrest the accused i.e. the respondent nos.5 and 6. The petitioner therefore prays for appropriate directions in that regard and also for the 2 seizure of the passport of respondent nos.5 to 7 and 9 to 10 and also to appoint Spl. Investigating Agency against the respondent no.6 who as per the petitioner claims to be the nephew of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The petitioner also prays for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent nos.5 to 7 and 9 to 10 as well as the regular bail granted to respondent nos. 8, 11 to 13. 2. Shri B.S.Barge, Police Inspector, presently attached to Special Branch, Pune City, has filed affidavit in reply. It is stated that the FIR was lodged on 24.1.2008 with the Anti Extortion Cell at Pune and he was the investigating officer. Investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed on 8.5.2008 against the accused persons. It has also been stated that the weapon allegedly used in the crime was recovered and six accused persons were arrested and released on regular bail whereas the remaining three accused obtained anticipatory bail. 3. The remedy for the petitioner for cancellation of bail lies somewhere else and not a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. When the chargesheet has been filed before the Competent Court, the petitioner has the remedy to submit an application for recovery of the 3 documents as well as the weapon. The affidavit states that the weapon used in the alleged crime was revolver and two cartridges were recovered at the instance of accused No.3 (respondent no.11 in this petition). Some documents like the Memorandum of Understanding, Deed of Cancellation, and receipts amounting to Rs.24,00,000/- were also seized at the instance of accused No.1 Shri Pravin Gange (respondent No.7 in this petition). It is further stated in the affidavit that during the course of investigation, nothing was revealed about the petitioner’s Tavera Car, nor was it mentioned in the FIR. 4. As the chargesheet has been already filed before the competent court, nothing further survives in this petition and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial court with appropriate application, if so desired. 5. Hence, petition is rejected. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]