drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.1020/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1020 OF 2010 Saheba Gajanan Kale & Another PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners Mrs.S.S.Jadhav h/f Mr.V.P.Latange, Advocate for R-6 to 12 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 11th February 2011 PER COURT: 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondents No.1 to 5 to forthwith arrest respondents No. 6 to 12, who are accused in Crime No.93/2009, registered on 14.08.2009 by Bhingar Camp police station for offence punishable u/s 120-B, 341, 342, 343, 330, 331, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the respondents No.6 to 12 are police personnel and on the basis of the First Information Report lodged, an offence as afore stated, came to be registered. Respondents No.6 to 12 approached this Court seeking relief of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Respondents No.6 to 12 also drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.1020/2010 approached the Supreme Court, however their application came to be dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a statement that the present respondents No.6 to 12 would like to file applications for grant of regular bail. 3. Since respondents No.6 to 12 were not arrested by the investigating officer, this petition came to be filed. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, it now transpired that the respondents No.6 to 10 and 12 have surrendered and were arrested and have now been released on regular bail. In so far as case of respondent No.11 is concerned, a statement came to be made before us by the learned counsel representing respondent No.11 that though respondent No.11 was available, yet the investigating officer has not arrested respondent No.11. Learned APP states that since no adequate material is found against respondent No.11, the investigating officer has not yet effected arrest of respondent No.11. 4. In the light of the aforesaid facts, according to us, the relief, which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition has been rendered infructuous and consequently this petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/cwp1020-10