Heard Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. R.C.Kodekar, learned APP, for the respondent State.
Mr.
Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is the co-accused and the main accused has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 18.8.2011 and that therefore, the FIR qua present petitioner may be quashed.
Having regard to the fact that the victim girl was minor at the relevant time and the details as to why the trial qua present petitioner was not conducted alongwith main accused is not clear from the record and considering the fact that very recently, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail and has been granted anticipatory bail probably in view of the fact that the main accused has been acquitted, learned APP is requested to inquire as to whether any appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and order dated 18.8.2011 or not, and also to inform the Court the reason as to why the trial of present petitioner is not commenced and completed until now and why he was not arrested until, though he applied for and has been granted anticipatory bail.
For the said purpose, Mr. Kodekar, learned APP, is granted time.
Notice returnable on 18.1.2013. Mr. Kodekar, learned APP, waives service of notice for the respondent State.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) kdc Page 2 of 2