DESAI RANJANA, J.

( 1 ) ADMIT. Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.

( 2 ) THE appellant along with others is being tried in POTA Special Case No. 2/03 in the Special Court constituted under The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 ("pota" for short ).

( 3 ) IN this case the appellant accused preferred application for certain reliefs. The application preferred by the appellant is M. A. No. 26/05. The application contained following prayers: a) To restrain the Prosecution from proceeding with a joint trial in respect of mulund Bomb Blast offence i. e. DCB, CID C. R. No. 21/03, the Vile parle Bomb Blast i. e. C. R. No. 09/03 and the Bombay Central Bomb blast i. e. C. R. No. 124/02 i. e. 59/03. b) To direct the Respondents/prosecution to take comply with the necessary pre-trial formalities in order to separately proceed in respect of Mulund blast vide C. R. No. 21/03. Vile Parle Blast vide C. R. No. 09/03 and mumbai Central Blast vice C. R. No. 59/03. c) To stay framing of charges of Joint Trial in POTA SPL. Case No. 2/2003 till final hearing and disposal of this application.

( 4 ) THE special Court by its order dated 30th July, 2005, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 34 of the POTA.

( 5 ) BEFORE we go to the rival contentions it is necessary to have a look at the facts. The city of Mumbai and its suburbs were rocked by a series of bomb blasts which took place between 2/12/2002 and 13/3/2003 1. e. within a period of about three months. The first bomb blast occurred on 2/12/2002 at ghatkopar in a bus near the railway station. It was registered as DCB CID c. R. No. 156/02. The second bomb blast took place on 6/12/02 near Me donald Restaurant at Bombay Central Railway Station. It was registered as dcb CID C. R. No. 59/03. The third bomb blast took place on 27/1 /03 at Vile parle vegetable market and it was registered as DCB CID C. R. No. 9/03 and the fourth bomb blast took place on 13/3/03 at Mulund in Karjat bound train. It was registered as DCB CID C. R. No. 21 /03 It is a matter of common knowledge that these blasts caused heavy damage to the property and resulted in loss of human lives.

( 6 ) THE basic submission of Mr. Solkar, learned Counsel for the appellant is that all these blasts are distinct incidents constituting distinct offences and investigated by distinct officers. They are cases registered at distinct police Stations. Independent applications are preferred by different officers in these cases and, therefore, they cannot be clubbed together and cannot be tried together.

( 7 ) MR. Solkar pointed out that in respect of Ghatkopar bomb blast six accused were arrested. In respect of Bombay Central and Vile Parle blasts no arrests were effected till April, 2003. On 10/4/03 Nachan accused 1 surrendered in Mulund blast case. Mr. Solkar pointed out that all 16 accused who are implicated in Mulund blast case are not implicated in Mumbai Central and Vile Parle bomb blast cases. The appellant was arrested on 9/6/2003 only in connection with Mulund blast. He is not arrested in connection with other blasts. Only 11 accused are implicated in Vile Parle bomb blast incident and 8 accused are implicated in Mumbai Central bomb blast incident. He contended that there is no material to show that all these acts form part of the same transaction. Mr. Solkar further pointed out that the two replies filed by the prosecution in the special Court contain contradictory averments. Whereas in one reply it is stated that different acts have been committed by different accused persons in pursuance of and in accomplishment of the same object of conspiracy and, therefore, all the offences committed by the accused can be jointly tried in the other affidavit it is stated that there is no question of joint trial. Mr. Solkar then contended that the learned Judge has wrongly relied on Sections 184 and 219 of the