Manish Liladhar Bhangale v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1 of 3 WP.1912.2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1912 OF 2016 Manish Liladhar Bhangale, R/o.210, Swati Nagar, TB Hospital Road, Mehsana, Gujrat-384 002 Petitioner versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,

2. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.

Respondents Mr.Sandesh Sawant for Petitioner.

Mr.Nitin Pradhan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP, for State.

Mr.Subhash Jha with Ms.Rushita Jain i/by Law Global for Applicants in APPW.255 of 2016.

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

DATE :

18 July 2016 PC :

1.

Mr.Nitin Pradhan, Special Public Prosecutor, has placed before us a report duly signed by Inspector of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad, Maharashtra State, Mumbai (`ATS'). The said report is in respect of subject matter of this petition. We have perused the report.

2 of 3 WP.1912.2016 2.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner alleges that the investigating agency has been showing interest in conducting investigation in respect of one telephone number which, according to the Petitioner, was allegedly used by one of the former minister of the State. It is alleged that no investigation is conducted in respect of other telephone numbers which the Petitioner has provided on which calls were received as per call details maintained by Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. The Petitioner alleges that these calls made were from Pakistan in India by terrorist.

3.

Learned counsel further submitted that Petitioner is under threat.

He has addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Police, Thane on 12 June 2016. A copy of the said letter is placed on record. It is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner needs protection to his life. He further submits that although the Petitioner was called twice by the investigating agency, but so far no complaint has been registered.

4.

Learned counsel Shri Pradhan, on instructions, submits that the investigating agency has already taken steps. A technically expert team would be looking into the matter and information provided by the Petitioner will be scrutinised by the said team. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations made

3 of 3 WP.1912.2016 by the Petitioner are ill-founded and baseless. Learned counsel further submitted that after completing the inquiry, a complaint would be registered in respect of alleged crime with Cyber Cell, Crime Branch, Mumbai on the basis of preliminary report prepared by ATS. Learned counsel submits that in respect of representation made by the Petitioner addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Thane, the Commissioner will look into the threat perception of the Petitioner.

5.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner who is present in the Court, states that as and when required, the Petitioner will provide all the possible assistance to the investigating agency.

6.

In view of the statement made by Mr.Nitin Pradhan, Special Public Prosecutor, as recorded above, we find that the petition can be disposed of. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

7.

It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the Petitioner. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) MST