GAZI MASHIKH SAYYED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate for applicant as well as learned APP for State.

(2.) It appears that FIR/Crime in which applicant is apprehending his arrest is outcome of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that though the applicant was a party to the writ petition; yet perusal of the FIR would show that no specific role is attributed to the applicant. So also, the scheme in respect of which there are allegations of misappropriation, was implemented through the Zilla Parishad and the applicant is not working with the Zilla Parishad. Since no role is attributed to the applicant, physical custody of the applicant is not necessary and, therefore, he be protected.