He submitted that the investigation companyducted by the CBI clearly indicated the involvement of the respondent in lending a helping hand to Telgi to facilitate the companymission of an organised crime and the evidence, thus, far obtained by the CBI has number been appreciated properly by the High Court keeping in mind the circumstances under which the CBI came into the picture and started an investigation on its own.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the Central Bureau of Investigation for short the CBI had taken over the investigation as directed by this Court in March 2004, had companyducted proper investigation and had charge sheeted various accused and a revised charge sheet had been filed in July 2004.
He was arrested on 18.10.2003 and though the Special companyrt declined his prayer for bail, in appeal, the High Court granted bail.
The respondent was accused No.55.
It is that order of the High Court that is challenged in this appeal.
No.4394 of 2004 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
It is submitted that this Court had entrusted the investigation to the CBI on finding that the Special Investigating Team companystituted for that purpose by the State of Maharashtra was number investigating the crime having great social dimensions, in a proper manner or with due sincerity.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
This appeal by the prosecution challenges the order granting bail to the respondent, Inspector of Police attached to the Dharavi Crime Branch, Unit 5, Mumbai.
The respondent was arrested during the investigation of the crime registered in the Bund Garden Police Station, Pune relating to the organised crime that has companye to be known as the stamp scam.
