GOPAL GOVIND GHARAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR.Gavand, colleague of MR.Mundargi, advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 mentions that MR.Mundargi, who appears as counsel for the respondents, had come to the court in the morning and went home as he was not feeling well. He therefore prays for an adjournment. Learned counsel for the applicant objects to the adjournment. Though I am not impressed by the objection as the adjournment has been sought on the ground of illness of the counsel, since the advocate for the applicant insists that the matter be heard. I have heard the advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) BY this application, the applicant has made two prayers. The applicant has firstly prayed that the investigation into the crime allegedly committed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 be directed to be carried out by the C.B.I. The applicant has secondly prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent nos.1 to 3 by the Sessions Court.

(3.) AS regards prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court, I see no reason to issue such a direction.