1 CriWP No.870/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.870/2010 ( Vitthal s/o Sajan Bakle and 2 Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Milind M Patil(Beedkar) Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. PP More, APP for State. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 20 th JUNE, 2011. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) The petitioner seeks quashment of Sessions Case No.96/2010 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, at Aurangabad, and particularly order passed below Exhibit-5, refusing to entertain the Discharge application. 3) The complainant, a police constable, (Buckle No.996, police Station, Wadod Bazar), claimed that on 27.8.2009, while he was discharging his official duties and attempting to execute NBW against the accused/petitioner Vitthal, he was intercepted, – manhandled and in the set of situation, other accused nos. 2 and 3 facilitated smooth escape of accused Vithal. The – complainant, suffered injuries due to a sharp boulder pelted by the accused, however, he could be saved by timely intervention of two police staff, who were passing through for police station. Their number Buckle nos. are also incorporated in the FIR. 4) An application for discharge was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, He has rejected the same, and in paragraph 5 of his order, the learned Judge observes, - perusal of the FIR and statements of PHC Ashok Tupe, PHC Uttam Bhaulal and – other witnesses, indicate that there is prima facie material to 2 CriWP No.870/2010 show that all the three accused/petitioners have deterered and obstructed PHC Madan Nagargoje from executing NBW and from discharging his public duty. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge declined to entertain the application for discharge. Primary evaluation of the charge sheet, which is incidentally annexed by the learned Counsel supports the above contention. This Court, at this stage of the matter, cannot have roving inquiry into the worth of the grounds raised by the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused indicate that he had earlier controversies over stacking and stagging illicit liquor in the hotel run by the accused/petitioner and the complainant had allegedly roped him in false prosecution. These assertions that are raised in the ground, not primarily supported by document, such plea can safely be entertained as a defence at appropriate stage. Consequently, criminal writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/