1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1717 OF 2010 Chandrakant Parshuram Birje .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Nirajsingh Sundersingh Thakur and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Amit Sale i/by Mr. Sandeep Babar for petitioner. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JUNE 23, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned APP appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner who claims to be an informant prays for the following reliefs: (B) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct CBI 2 Investigation and/or investigation by any other independent investigating agency. (C) that this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice be pleased to grant protection to petitioner since there is great danger to his life and liberty from the respondent no.1 and the people connected with him. 3. It is contended that Ratna Ganpat Birje (petitioner’s elder brother’s wife) had illicit relationship with respondent no.1 and the petitioner’s elder brother filed an FIR with R.C.F. Police Station on 22/2/2010 against Mr. Harish Valecha, who is the friend of respondent no. 1. Respondent no.1 was arrested on 22/2/2010 and was released on bail on the same day. It is further alleged that respondent no.1 in continuation of the threats given to the petitioner had instigated / conspired to plant NDPS in the car of the petitioner. The petitioner thus provided information to respondent no.2 and on the basis of the said information a trap was laid on 19/4/2010 between 5 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. opposite the dental clinic located in Sargam Apartment, Nityanand Road, Ram Tekadi, Chembur and in the said trap one Shri Sunil Krishnakumar Singh was caught with 500 gms. of 3 charas which was given to him by other two accused persons, namely, Shri Mustaq and Shri Yusuf. Some ammunitions were also found with said Sunil Krishnakumar Singh. An FIR came to be registered against the said three persons, but the name of respondent no.1 was not added as one of the accused, though he was the main conspirator. The petitioner prays to add respondent no.1 as the co-accused in the NDPS Case. 4. We have gone through the information allegedly provided by the petitioner as well as the statements recorded of the accused in the NDPS Case. We have also considered the order passed on 6/5/2010 in Bail Application No. 62 of 2010 filed by the respondent no.1 before the NDPS Special Court for Greater Mumbai. We are satisfied that the contentions raised by the petitioner are far fetched and there is no material before us in support of his prayers made in this petition. 5. Hence, this petition must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)