1 wp279410 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2794 OF 2010 Dr. Mohammed Shareef Shabbir Ahmed ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Sushan Kunjuraman for the Petitioner Mr. R.B. Thakare with Mr. A.M. Chimalkar, Special Public Prosecutor, and Mr. A.S. Gadkari, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C.:- Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Our attention is invited to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12th October, 2010 in Criminal Application No. 4098 of 2010. We are in agreement with the reasons recorded in the said order. In that view of the matter, prayer clause (a), which is the main relief, will have to be turned down, as having been 2 wp279410 answered on the basis of reasons recorded in the order dated 12th October, 2010, referred to above. 3. Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the suggestion made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Once the trial of one MCOCA case commences, the same will have to be proceeded continuously on a day-to-day basis. In that case two trials cannot be conducted together, more so because both the cases involve large number of witnesses and evidence which will be produced by the respective parties during the trial. 4. Insofar as prayer clause (c) is concerned, we are in agreement with the submission made by the Special Public Prosecutor for the State that since the co-accused is common in both the cases, and that counsel appearing for the different accused are common in both the cases, it will not be possible for two trials to go on simultaneously in different Courts before Special Judge. In view of the above, relief in terms of prayer clause (c) also cannot be granted. 5. We are also in agreement with the submission of the Special Public Prosecutor that in Aurangabad Blast Case, the witnesses will be 3 wp279410 coming from Aurangabad, and once the evidence commences, it will have to be concluded on a day-to-day basis. Considering all these aspects and the logistical difficulties pointed out by the Special Public Prosecutor, the reliefs in this petition cannot be acceded to. 6. Insofar as the last relief is concerned, we do not think it appropriate to give any time-frame for the trial in the respective cases. We hope and trust that the Special Jude would do his best to expedite the respective trials. 7. As a matter of fact, the petitioner, having preferred application through jail, and invited order of the learned Single Judge, is disentitled to pursue remedy by way of this writ petition for the same reliefs. 8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.P. BHANGALE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.