1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2847 OF 2009 Kamal Ahmad @ Haider Vakil Ansari, U.T.No.4171/08, Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur. : Applicant/ Accused V/s. State of Maharashtra, through Supdt., Central Prison, Nagpur. : Respondent .... Mrs.Nasreen Ayubi (appointed) for the applicant. Ms M.H. Mhate, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicant-accused has been charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the “MCOCA”. The offence is pending trial before the Special Judge at Mumbai. The accused is lodged in Central Jail at Nagpur. The accused apparently is also facing another trial before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Chief M.M. Court, Delhi. He has filed this application for modification of an order passed by the learned Special Judge on 2 8.10.2008 in which the learned Judge has observed that having regard to section 10 of the Act, the trial of cases other than cases under the MCOCA are required to be kept in abeyance. The learned Judge has, therefore, directed the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail, not to produce the accused Kamal Ahmad @ Haider Vakil Ansari before any other Court. 2. Mrs.Ayubi, the learned counsel for the applicant, points out that the case before the Special Judge under the MCOCA, Mumbai, is admittedly stayed by the Supreme Court. This fact is not disputed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the intention of section 10 is to facilitate trial under the MCOCA by giving it precedence over the trial of any other case against the same accused and in such cases the trial of such other cases shall remain in abeyance. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the present case, the trial before the Special Judge under the MCOCA at Mumbai cannot be given precedence over any other trial since it has been stayed and, therefore, submits that in the circumstances, the order of the learned Special Judge referred to above be stayed. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the trial before the Special Judge at Mumbai has been stayed. No special reasons are pointed out why appearance of the accused before the Criminal Court at Delhi should be stayed in the meanwhile. 3 3. Hence, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the order of the Special Judge dated 8.10.2008 directing that the accused Kamal Ahmad @ Haider Vakil Ansari should not be produced before any other Court is hereby set aside. If required, the applicant may be produced before the District & Sessions Judge-cum-C.M.M. Court, Delhi, in Case no.103/08 after providing appropriate security and escort. Order accordingly. 4. This Criminal Application stands disposed of. 5. This order shall be communicated forthwith to the Special Judge under the MCOCA, Mumbai, and the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur. S.A. BOBDE, J.