1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4368 OF 2009 (Amodi Abubakar Amodi Saeed vs. The State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.D.Rakh, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:20/1/2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Counsel for the accused/applicant. 2. Earlier Criminal Application No.2749/2009 moved by the accused/applicant, for exercise of powers in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.I-59/2009, registered at Jinsi Police Station at Aurangabad, involving offenses punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 of IPC, came to be rejected. 3. The present application is 2 moved with identical prayers in terms of exercise of powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after chargesheet is filed against the accused/applicant. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, Counsel, while canvassing for grant of bail in the event of arrest, has taken recourse to the observations of Brother Judge in one of the bail petition where the Brother Judge has observed that at the most, a case under Section 324 of IPC is made out and the said accused was directed to be released on bail. 5. The role attributed to the accused applicant is highlighted in the FIR and statements that have been considered while rejecting the bail application dt. 20.8.2009. The plea of alibi was also taken into consideration. No change in the circumstances to consider the matter in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is highlighted. The sorry state of affairs as is projected in the matter is writ large. The 3 investigator did not adhere to the obligation cast on him as the status of the accused/applicant demonstrates, the accused must have attended several meetings of the Municipal Council, Aurangabad, during the intervening period but nothing is placed before this Court to show, any effort made to nab the culprit. The application lacks merit. Rejected. The request for interim protection, to enable the accused/applicant to surrender before the concerned Police, in the fact situation, is difficult to digest and hence rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature, will not come in the way of the accused/applicant while seeking bail, after his surrender. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/4368-09crapl