Ladda 1 wp-2878-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2878 OF 2010 Rajendra Bapu Sadole & anr ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors ...Respondents Mr Prakash Naik i/by D.V. Sutar, Advocate for Petitioners. Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State CORAM:­ A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:­ 23rd February, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. The only reliefs that survive for consideration are prayer clauses (a) and (e) in this petition, as has been observed in our order dated 24th January, 2011. In view of the observations made in the said order, the Additional Superintendent of Police has re­examined the matter and gave opportunity to the petitioner Rajendra Sadole to record his statement on 3.2.2011 which was done in the presence of his Advocate Shri Vikas Khade. Affidavit of the Additional S.P. dated 10­2­2011 Ladda 2 wp-2878-10 asserts in no unequivocal terms that the petitioner was asked, whether he would like to produce any other evidence to which he answered in the negative. It is, now, for the first time, in the further affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has asserted that he was accompanied by other witnesses, but the Additional S.P. declined to record their statements. These are the bare words of the petitioner. The same are not supported either by the affidavit of Advocate Khade, who was present along with the petitioner at the relevant time, or by the affidavit of other witnesses, who were to be examined by the petitioners. 3. The Additional S.P. when asked to clarify the position, who is present in the Court, states that the factual position stated by the petitioners in para 3 of the affidavit which has been now served on the learned A.P.P. is false and misleading. From the report which has been filed and also the affidavit, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned A.P.P. that the attempt of the petitioner, who is accused in C.R.No. 85 of 2010, is to confuse the said investigation by making misleading statements and false allegations against the police officials. In our opinion, going by the pleadings, and, in particular, the detail affidavit of the officer of the rank of Addl. S.P., we do not think it appropriate to entertain the prayer clauses (a) and (e) as prayed in this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected. Ladda 3 wp-2878-10 4. The report of the Additional S.P. dated 11.2.2011 which was ordered to be kept in a sealed cover is returned back to the Additional S.P. in the Court. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)