1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3175/2009 Anita D.Dagde & Anr. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for the petitioner Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2010 . P.C. . The first petitioner is the daughter of deceased Sanjay and the second petitioner is the brother of the deceased. In this petition the petitioners have prayed that the investigation of the case be transfered to C.B.I. or any other independent officer ,Sessions Case no. 727/2007 be stayed and police protection be given to the petitioners as well as members of their family. 2] So far as prayer regarding police protection is concerned the petitioners may make application to the Superintendent of the Police of the concerned area. If such an application is made the Superintendent of Police may consider it in accordance with law. 2 3] So far as prayer for transfer of the case to C.B.I. or any other investigation is concerned that cannot be granted. This application is made at the fag end of the trial. No case is made out for grant of such belated application. The grievance made by the petitioner that the trial Court has not examined vital witnesses which is likely to defeat justice needs to be redressed. 4] Sessions Case no. 727/2008 was expedited by the Single Judge of this Court by order dated 4/12/2008 . Learned Single Judge has observed that the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one year from the date of receipt of order dated 4/12/2008. It appears to us that in order to complete the trial within time frame laid down by this Court , learned trial Judge wants to close the case. Learned A.P.P., however, states that though summonses were issued to the said witnesses the witnesses refused to come and therefore the trial Court had to conclude the trial . He states that in fact one of the witnesses who the petitioner claims has not been examined was examined and he turned hostile. Learned counsel for the petitioner, 3 however, states that the witnesses could not remain present because they were threatened by the accused. He states that one of the witnesses turned hostile because threats were given by the accused. At this stage we do not want to express any opinion on this aspect because it is for the trial Court to decide as to why any witness turned hostile. But we must also state that merely because the High Court has expedited the trial , learned Judge should not try to meet the time frame by completing the trial without examining the material witnesses. All efforts should be made to ensure that the material witnesses remain present in the Court. On several occasions when request is made by the Sessions Court , this Court extends the time to conclude the Sessions Case. Such application could have been made by the Sessions Court. 5] Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the most material witnesses namely Firoz Usman Shaikh, Jamil Hanif Ansari, Anita Daulat Dagade and Rajendra Balu Kolpe will have to be examined. However,these witnesses may be threatened and hence may not attend the Court . In the circumstances of the case we direct the investigating agency to ensure these witnesses if they 4 are not already examined are brought to the Court in police protection. After they depose before the Court they should be taken back to their houses in police protection. If the witnesses are examined, learned trial Judge conclude the trial in accordance with law preferably on day today basis. If the witnesses do not cooperate ,the trial Court would be free to proceed with the case. 6] We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 7] The petition is disposed of. (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J.) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)