IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2007 Riyaz Ahmed Yusuf Mokashi. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr.Murtaza M. Najmi for the applicant. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for the State. Pradip D. Gharat, Spl.P.P. for C.B.I. WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 574 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 574 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 574 OF 2007 Mallesh Balappaa Dhulannavar. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mrs.Sonia S. Miskin for the applicant. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for the State. Pradip D. Gharat, Spl.P.P. for C.B.I. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 27th July 2007. DATED: 27th July 2007. DATED: 27th July 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.P.P. for the State and learned special counsel for C.B.I. 2. The trial has already been expedited in Special Case Nos.111/2004 and 112/2004. In one case, there are 34 witnesses, whereas in other case there are 39 witnesses. Hardly 8 to 10 witnesses are, yet, to be examined. In this view of the matter, considering the earlier order and the progress made in the trial, I am not inclined to entertain this application. 3. So far as Special Case No.550/2006 is concerned, the entire material is not before this Court. The progress made in the trial is also not before this Court. In the circumstances, at this stage, it is not possible to give any direction so far as trial is concerned. 4. Both the applications are, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE