wp505.10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 505 OF 2010 Shri Pradeep Gangaram Khopade ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. Prakash Naik, for the Petitioner. Ms. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 2nd July, 2010 P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Shinde, the learned APP for the Respondent. 2 C.R. No. 68 of 2009 came to be registered with the Bhor Police Station (Rural), at the behest of Shri Ganpat Shamrao Khopade, the Complainant. It is the Petitioner’s case that on 28/12/2009, he was assaulted with iron bar, fists and kicks by Shri Shashikant Shahajirao Khopade and Pankaj Khopade, both R/o. Ambade village and he was hospitalized in semi-conscious condition. He came to be discharged on 01/01/2010. He prays for transfer of investigation in C.R. No. 68 of 2009 to the State C.I.D. or any other investigating agency. Mr. Naik, the learned wp505.10.sxw 2 counsel has taken us through the statement of the Petitioner recorded by the I.O. on 05/01/2010 and based on the said statement, it is submitted that though the actual assailants were arrested by the police, no action was taken against the conspirators viz. Rajendra Gopal Waghulkar, Dhyarsheel Bhagwan Khopade, Arun Bhagwan Khopade and Randhir Shahaji Khopade. It is submitted by Mr. Naik, that the investigating officer has not conducted the investigation on the basis of the Petitioner’s statement and he has deliberately allowed conspirators to escape from trial. 3 During the pendency of this Petition, the I.O. completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, a copy of which is made available to the Petitioner’s counsel on 22/04/2010 by the learned APP. The charge-sheet is filed against 2 accused viz. Shashikant Khopade and Pankaj Khopade for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4 We have gone through the statement of the Petitioner recorded on 05/01/2010 and relied upon by Mr. Naik and in the said statement, we do not find any material, even prima facie, against Rajendra Waghulkar, Arun Khopade and Randhir Khopade. However, it is alleged in the said statement that when Shashikant Khopade assaulted the Petitioner, he had stated that the attempt was at the behest of Dhyaryasheel Nana i.e. Dhyaryasheel Khopade. The charge sheet indicates that there were five other eye- wp505.10.sxw 3 witnesses and even in the statement recorded on 05/01/2010 that there were 2 to 5 persons at the places. The FIR came to be registered on the complaint lodged by Shri Ganpat Khopade and we have perused the said FIR as well as the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded and prima facie we do not find any material to support the Petitioner’s contention that Shri Dhyaryasheel khopade was the conspirator and the master-mind behind the attack inflicted on him by the two accused. 5 Hence, we do not find any case to either transfer the investigation so as to conduct further investigation, to any other agency or to direct addition of any other accused in the charge-sheet already filed. 6 Hence, the Petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)