1 Criminal W.P.No.82 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 82 OF 2011 Sudhakar @ Suvarna Nillaya Suvarna ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr R.S. Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr N.L. Chaudhari for the petitioner; Mr N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 11th July, 2011 PER COURT : This is a petition at the behest of the petitioner, who is an accused in a criminal trial, seeking transfer of investigation to the C.B.I. Undisputedly, a charge-sheet in the present case has already been filed and an application for further investigation has already been moved by the Investigating Officer seeking permission of the Court for drawing the blood samples of the petitioner/accused. We are informed by Shri R.S. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said application is pending consideration. 2. A petition at the behest of the accused for transfer of the investigation, first and foremost, is not maintainable. Assuming that the 2 Criminal W.P.No.82 of 2011 said petition is maintainable, upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that no grounds whatsoever have been made out by the petitioner for transfer of the investigation. A charge-sheet in the Court has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer and an application for further investigation is pending consideration before the Trial Magistrate. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, merely because the petitioner apprehends that a fresh investigation would be commenced if the Magistrate grants permission is no ground at all to transfer the investigation. 3. We have heard Shri R.S. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P., who has contended before us that the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Application before the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of the first information report against him. The aforesaid filing of the earlier application before the learned Single Judge has not been disclosed by the petitioner. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 23.8.2010. The petitioner had withdrawn the aforesaid application. In any event, since on merits we do not find that the petitioner has any case, we dismiss the petition summarily with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp82.11