1 appln5652-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5652 OF 2010 Shakil Ahmed Mohd. Mursalin Shaikh .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Swapnil L.Wagh for the Applicant Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for Respondent State. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25 th March, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Wagh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent-State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 invoking inherent powers of this Court for quashing of the proceedings bearing case No. 84/P/2003 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade Mumbai, against the applicant who is one of the co-accused who stand charged for the offence punishable under Section 387 read with 34 of .I.PC. It is mentioned that original accused No.3 came to be discharged. The applicant is original accused No.4. 3. Admittedly there is no direct evidence against the applicant accused for commit ting office under Section 387 of I.P.C. i.e. extortion. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant asked accused Nos. 1 and 3 to collect ransom from the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that there is absolutely no material or 2 appln5652-10 evidence against this accused and as such the learned Trial Court ‘s order of rejection of his application for discharge requires re-consideration. 4. It is submitted that charge is framed against accused no. 3 and other persons including the present applicant. Out of them, accused no. 3 is discharged and accused nos. 1 and 2 have jumped bail and are absconding and therefore, there is inordinate delay occasioned in holding the trial. The charge is framed in September, 2003. 5. Heard the learned APP for the State and the concerned Police Officer who is also present present. They have given assurance that trial would be separated for this accused since the other accused are absconding. It is also admitted that there is no direct evidence against this accused except the evidence of giving threats on telephone which they would be proving at the time of trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate order would be to expedite the trial and not to comment on the merits of the case. Hence the following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R i. Trial Court shall proceed with the Trial of the applicant, separately from the other co-accused and dispose it of on or before 30 th June, 2011. ii. The applicant shall co-operate the trial and shall attend the proceedings on such dates of the hearing, for recording of the evidence. iii. The Application is accordingly disposed of. iv. Parties to an act on an authenticated copy of the order. v. Writ be issued to the trial Court. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )