1 cri-wp-2719-2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.2719 of 2009 Ravi Mallesh Bora Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Ms.P.B.Kulkarni for petitioner. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. July 30, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel with Ms.Kulkarni. Ms.Shinde, the learned APP appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner apprehends that the Mumbai Police may again target him and involve him in some criminal case and take him in custody 2 cri-wp-2719-2009 without following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basu’s case [AIR 1997 SC 610]. Thus the petition has been filed solely under apprehensions. By the petitioner’s own contentions from the year 1994 to 2007 he was shown as an accused in 23 cases and he has been acquitted in 19 of them. In a CR registered at Nashik for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, the Sessions case is still pending along with Sessions Case No.598 of 2007 and Sessions Case No.30 of 1996 at Mumbai. It was also submitted that the petitioner was allegedly targeted in a false encounter case and there is an imminent possibility that he may be targeted in future also. 3. Be that as it may, we cannot pre-suppose as of now that if and when any accused is sought to be arrested by the police, they would not follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu’s case and the same applies to the apprehension of the petitioner. Hence at this stage, we do not see any reason to show our indulgence in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)