1 Cri.WP Nos. 977/10 & 1084/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.977/2010 Deorao Vyankatesh Shobhane - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.AG Godhamgaonkar Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1084/2010 Jagdish s/o Anant Naik - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Suhas P.Urgunde, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1st February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties in both the writ petitions. 2 Cri.WP Nos. 977/10 & 1084/10 2) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 3) The learned Counsel mainly relies to the judgment in Criminal Writ petition No.486 of 2010 moved by Nazir Ahmed Maqbool Bagwan and two others, in which the brother Judge (A.V.Nirgude,J.)quashed the proceedings concerning the petitioners in that Writ Petition. In paragraph 9 at page 143, it is observed as under, - “9. The question I was asking to the prosecution gain and again was, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the delay that has caused in the beginning of the Trial, the prosecution would be able to make available all the relevant witnesses before the trial court ? answer remains elusive. So I asked the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners to get copies of the depositions of the witnesses, who were examined before the Court. With the help of the learned Advocate of the petitioners, I went through the depositions and found that practically no relevant material so far has been brought on record against the present petitioners. Even as against other two accused who are not before this Court today there is hardly any material.” 4) The reference in the said paragraph relates to the present Petitioners/accused. The 3 Cri.WP Nos. 977/10 & 1084/10 factual details enumerated in Criminal Writ Petition No.486 of 2010 are identical to the present Petitioners. Learned APP accepts this position. The prosecution in Special Case No. 3/1991 (New ACB Case No.1 of 2005), pending on the file of learned Special Judge, Udgir, District Latur, therefore, was concerning said Nazir Ahmed and also the present two petitioners/accused. No distinct and other view can be adopted or taken than one taken by this Court in criminal writ petition by order dated 22nd October, 2010, whereby the Criminal Writ Petition No. 486 of 2010 was allowed. 5) The observations referred above also speak that there is no material against the present petitioners. On perusal of the record, I find same situation, consequently, the prosecution against the petitioner – Deorao Vyankatesh Shobhane ( in Cri.WP No.977/2010) and petitioner – Jagdish s/o Anant Naik (in Cri.WP.No.1084/2010) is quashed. 6) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/