1 wp 1918-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2010 Mr.Bimal s/o. Ramgopal Agarwal ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vaibhav Kamili i/b. Mr.Vaibhav Bagade for the Petitioner. Mr.P.A. Pol, PP for the State. Mr.M.Shah Alam Khan for Respondent No.7. Mr.Subhodh Desai i/b. Mr.Punil B. Anand for Respondent No.8. Mr.Manish Bohra for Respondent No.9. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JUNE 28, 2011 P.C. :- 1 This petition is adjourned from time to time on one pretext or other. In the Order dated 7th February, 2011, this Court considered the prayers made by the petitioner. The grievance was that respondent no.5 carried out an illegal sting operation and it was telecast by respondent nos.3 and 2 wp 1918-2010 4, respectively on 23rd June, 2010 on the TV channels by named “Headlines Today” and “Aaj Tak”. This Court noted that on such an issue, there was no formal complaint filed by the petitioner to any police station. The Counsel for the petitioner then stated that he would lodge a formal complaint with the concerned police station and the said undertaking was noted by the Court. It was directed that the concerned police station should take steps to register FIR and investigate into the allegations. Consequently, prayer clause (a) was, thus, dealt with. 2 So far as the allegation of illegal tapping of mobile phone with the assistance of respondent nos.8 and 9 – the service providers is concerned, this Court noted that no affidavit was filed to counter the allegations, though they were duly served. Time was granted to respondent no.8 to file affidavit-in-reply. It was also noted that prayer 3 wp 1918-2010 clause (a) would not survive. 3 Respondent no.8 has filed affidavit-in-reply on 21st February, 2011 pointing out that telephone conversation on two cell numbers 9820352300, 9920352300 was never tapped or intercepted. It has been further stated that no request or direction for interception of the telegraphic messages in respect of two mobile numbers of the petitioners was received by respondent no.1. On the face of this clarification, nothing further survives in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)