MANJIT SINGH SETHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - HEARD Mr. Jethmalani, the learned Counsel for the applicants-Original accused Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Mhaispurkar, the learned APP for the State and Mr. Holmagi, the learned Advocate for the intervenor-orig complainant. The application for intervention came to be allowed as the learned Counsel for the applicants as well as the learned APP for the state had no objection to the same.

(2.) The applicants have been convicted under sections 365, 367, 368, 394, 397 r/w. 34 of IPC. The maximum sentence imposed on them is 10 years. The applicants are now seeking bail.

(3.) Mr. Jethmalani submitted that during the period that the applicants were on bail, no C. R. or even a N. C. was registered at the instance of the complainant in respect of the applicants. This statement has not been controverted by the prosecution. Even in the affidavit filed by the learned app, there is no mention of the complainant filing any C. R. or a N. C. against the applicants.