1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Writ Petition No.559 of 2008 Abu Salem @ Abdul Quayoom Ansari Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondent Mr.Sudeep Pasbola for petitioner. Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. June 30, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Pasbola, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mhaispurkar, the learned APP appears for the respondents. On 28/2/2008 the Government of Maharashtra through the Department of Home passed an order under Section 268 of Cr.P.C. directing that the petitioner be not allowed to be removed from Mumbai Central Prison, Arthur Road, Mumbai and the said order has been challenged in this petition. . The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order of extradition as well as the decision of the Supreme Court of Portugal and submitted that the liberty and equality available to the petitioner has been taken away by the impugned order and when he is facing some cases outside the Arthur Road Prison as 2 well as State of Maharashtra, due to the impugned order he would not be shifted or taken to be present before the concerned Courts and as a result thereof the trials will be inordinately delayed and under that pretext he will remain in jail. . The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detection Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai has filed the affidavit-in-reply and has stated that out of three cases before the Courts at Mumbai in which the petitioner is facing trial, two are already before the Special Judge and the said Special Court is in the premises of the Arthur Road Prison. Mr.Mhaispurkar, the learned APP on instructions stated that the State Government will approach the High Court on its administrative side for assigning the third case also to the Special Court so that all the three cases presently pending against the petitioner at Mumbai will be conducted before the very same Court located in the Arthur Road Central Prison, Mumbai. . So far as the cases pending outside Maharashtra or Mumbai city are concerned, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in Home Department (Special) has filed an affidavit and has stated that 3 as and when any warrant is issued by any such Court outside Mumbai / Maharashtra addressed to the Superintendent of Arthur Road Central Prison or any other jail in Maharashtra requiring the presence of the petitioner in any such Court, the same will be first placed before the learned Special Judge (TADA Court) under whose custody the petitioner is at present and undergoing the trial and thereafter as per the orders of the Special Court granting permission, the State Government will make arrangements to ensure that the petitioner attends to such Courts by relaxing the impugned order. In short, it will be the responsibility of the State Government through the Department of Home to take suitable steps so that the petitioner is taken to the warrant issuing Court to remain present before it as and when required and subject to the permission granted by the learned Special Judge at Mumbai. . We are satisfied with the undertaking furnished by the State Government and, therefore, no further order is required to be passed in this petition on noting down the statement made by the learned APP as well as the undertaking furnished in the additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to the 4 Government of Maharashtra in the Home Department. Petition is disposed off. Undoubtedly as and when the petitioner receives any such warrant, he has the liberty to bring it to the attention of the Special Court before which he is facing the trial in Mumbai. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)