1 wp499.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 499 OF 2010 Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mrs. B.P. Jakhade for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 18th August, 2010 P.C.: 1 This petition is filed through the jail and the Petitioner is an under- trial prisoner with Central Jail, Thane. He is one of the accused in POTA Special Case No. 1 of 2003. The trial in the said case was stayed by the Supreme Court on 18/10/2005 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 419-421 of 2008 and therefore, during the last about 5-7 years, the petitioner remained an under-trial prisoner. 2 By this Petition, he prays for being released, as he has been in jail from the last more than 7 years. He also prays for directions to drop the 2 wp499.10.sxw ssm charges framed under POTA against him. It appears that he filed an application which is marked as Exhibit 54 in the pending case and another application registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2007 and he seeks directions to the Special Court to hear and decide it expeditiously. Though, he has made a host of prayers, we need not consider the remaining such prayers in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 11/08/2010, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 419-421 of 2008 with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 128 of 2008. By the said order, the Supreme Court has vacated the interim stay order dated 18/10/2005 and directed the trial to proceed. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered on 05/11/2004 and which was a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court, has been set aside with a further clarification that the decision of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu, (2005), 11 SCC, 600 shall govern the issues raised by the Appellant. The Supreme Court has further directed that Criminal Writ Petition No. 1742 of 2004, 1650, 1992, 2001 and 983 of 2004 be heard by a Division Bench of this Court and decided in the light of the decision of Navjyot Sandhu case as expeditiously as possible. 3 The prayer of the Petitioner for being released on bail cannot be considered in this Petition and his pending applications as referred to here- in-above, will have to be decided by the Special Court on their own merits, 3 wp499.10.sxw ssm as these applications remained pending on account of the stay to the trial. His plea for discharge will have to be considered by the Special Court, if such an application is pending before it. 4 Hence, we dispose this petition by the following directions. 1) The pending application at Exhibit 54 and Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2007 be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 8 weeks from receipt of this order by the Special Court. b) If the Petitioner applies for bail order/ discharge, the same will have to be considered by the Special Court on its own merits. 5 Writ to go forthwith. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)