Ranjana Desai, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment because the parties and the facts involved in both the petitions are the same.

3. It is necessary to begin with the facts of the case. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16/6/2007, the petitioners committed offences under Sections 395, 397, 342, 452, 457, 506(II), 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) read with Sections 4, 5, 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act within the jurisdiction of Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.

4. The case was registered vide C.R. No.155 of 2007. The investigation of the said CR was transferred to DCB, CID, Mumbai, and the case was numbered as CR No.39 of 2007. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested. The provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short, “the MCOCA”) came to be invoked and the charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners before the designated Special Court (for short, “the Special Court”) on 12/10/2007 and the said case was num