1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.268 /2009 (T Shriniwas s/o Birayya vs. State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr R M Patwardhan, Adv. for applicant Mr. Anup Parihar, APP for Respondent CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 10 th August, 2009. Heard counsel for respective parties. 2. The applicant is facing prosecution for offence punishable under sections 5 and 9 of the Explosives Substances Act read with section 3,4, and 25 of the Arms Act as also u/ss. 10,13,18,20,21 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Amendment Act, in respect of which Crime No. 3316/206 was reported at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. According to learned Advocate for the applicant the applicant is awaiting trial since long and a statutory sanction was obtained pending the trial which, according to him, is not lawful. 3. Earlier on July 7, 2009 this Court had rejected Criminal Application No.2001/2008 considering the seriousness of the accusations and since arms of ammunitions were recovered from the vehicle occupied by this applicant along with the others. The bail is also objected on the ground that the applicant is associated with People War Group of Naxal Movements Maoist Dallam and is engaged in supply and arms and ammunitions and other co-accused were closely connected with the illegal and banned Organization and deal involved to provide arms and ammunition to other Naxals. Apart from seizure of weapons and arms valued more than Rs. 7 lakhs and cash, Tavera vehicle valued at Rs. 2 4,84, 200 were seized. Learned APP contended that the in the past two criminal cases were reported against the applicant. It is further contended that while on bail earlier, the applicant had misused the liberty. 4. That being so, no case is made out for grant of bail. However, the trial Court is expected to complete the hearing in Sessions trial, as early as possible. Applicant to cooperate. Application is rejected. JUDGE. sahare