AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Mr. Vasvani, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Shinde, the learned APP for the State.
We have perused the affidavit filed by Mr. S.K. Goud, Asstt. Inspector of Police, presently attached to the Lonawala Police Station, district Pune.
Mr. Shinde, the learned APP stated that for cancellation of the bail of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, who are the accused in Sessions Case No. 811 of 2008, an application has been submitted before the trial court and it is pending.
Regarding the security threat of the Petitioner, the affidavit states that as and when she is required to attend the trial in SC No. 811/2008, the security arrangement could be provided to her, if she gives advance intimation to the Lonawala city Police Station.
So far as the prayer for further investigation is concerned, it is for the trial court to appreciate the said issue. We are informed that the Petitioner has engaged an Advocate to represent her cause before the trial court and to assist the learned APP.
It is under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to entertain this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the Petitioner gives intimation to the Lonawala city Police Station a week in advance, regarding her appearance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Pune in SC No. 811/2008, we direct Respondent No. 1 to provide suitable security to her on usual terms and conditions.
As the Petitioner, has engaged an Advocate before the trial court, she may submit an application u/s 311 of Cr. P.C. for examination of additional witnesses. If any, and the said application will be considered on its own merit.
Save and except the aforesaid directions, the Petition is rejected.