1 cri.wp no. 1602 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1602 OF 2010 Saquid Abdul Hamid Nachan ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves for the petitioner. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : MARCH 04, 2011 P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard counsel. 2. This petition filed from Jail seeks expunging of certain remarks made by the Special Court for POTA Cases in four applications for bail filed by the co-accused of the petitioner. The petitioner is accused no. 1 in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2003. The petition seeks expungement of three remarks which are described as Exh. "A", Exh. "B" and Exh. "C" in the application made before the trial Court. Therefore, these remarks would be referred to by the same description in this 2 cri.wp no. 1602 of 2010 order. As regards remarks at Exh. A and C are concerned, the special Public Prosecutor for POTA matters in his reply to the application for expunging of the remarks, conceded that the remarks are not borne out by the record. The remarks relate to the statements made by the co-accused of the petitioner i.e. accused No. 11 and accused no. 4 in their confessional statements. The learned Special Prosecutor stated that the remarks attributed to the petitioner herein are not found in the confessional statements of these two co-accused. In that circumstances, the remarks at Exh. "A" and "C" are to be expunged without any further discussions. 3. The third remark at Exh. B reads as under : ........ It is also mentioned in the confessional “ statement of accused no. 7 Noor Mohammad that in the month of April, 2002, he alongwith accused no. 1 Saquib Nachan gave arms training to Muslim youth at Mahuli Hills which is 15 kilometer away from Padhgha ..............” 4. Mr. Gansalves, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of accused no. 7 will show that the actual training was in fact given by accused no. 7 himself and 3 cri.wp no. 1602 of 2010 not the petitioner. The Special Prosecutor in his remarks has submitted that the confessional statement shows that the entire plan of giving training of handling of weapons and preparation of bombs was hatched by the petitioner herein and accused no. 7. The plan was executed by accused no. 7 with the help of petitioner. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not part of the training being given. 5. On perusal of the confessional statement of accused no. 7, it becomes difficult to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Though as per the statement actual training was given by accused no. 7 himself the petitioner cannot be dissociated from the activity of training. He was part of the planning and execution of the training. The remarks at Exh. B are required to be read in their broader perspective. 6. In the circumstances, the petition is partly allowed. The remarks at Exh. "A" and "C" alone are expunged from the order dated 31st December, 2008 of the sessions court on Bail 4 cri.wp no. 1602 of 2010 application no. 17 of 2005 and the order dated 4h May, 2009 passed on bail application no. 4 of 2008. [Judge]