1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. WRIT PETITION NO.214 of 2011 (Rajkumar @ Raj Swarupsingh Rajawat ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.M. Daruwala, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner, Smt. Nandita Tripati, APP for the respondent-State. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : APRIL 21, 2011. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the police officials of Nandanvan Police Station and Crime Branch demanded money from him, as the petitioner was not willing to give money, he was harassed and falsely involved in cases. It is his case that whenever he is released from Nagpur Central Prison, he is picked up at the jail gate itself and he is arrested in other cases. 3. The affidavit filed by the respondent shows that there is no merit in the allegations regarding demand of money. It is clear from the record that the police have not arrested the present petitioner from or near the premises of the Central Prison, Nagpur. It is stated that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases. He is a member of a gang and 2 all the members of the gang are involved in a number of cases of house breaking and robbery. 4. In addition to the four cases stated by the petitioner i.e. Crime No.253/2010, 240/2010, 257/2010 and 255/2010, the petitioner is also involved in two other cases i.e. Crime No.22/2010 and 266/2006 of Kotwali Police Station. Looking to the affidavit filed by the State, we find no merit in the allegations made by the petitioner, hence the petition is rejected. However, looking to the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for a long period of time, the trial in Crime Nos.22/2010 and 226/2006 is expedited. The fees of the Advocate appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who is in Central Prison, Nagpur. JUDGE JUDGE pma