R.P. Dholaria, J.

Rule. Mr.Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 State and Mr.Ruturaj Nanavati, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioners original accused under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("the Code" for short) challenging the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by learned Designated Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Trial Cases at Ahmedabad below Exh.6695 in Sessions Case No.38 of 2009 whereby the application Exh.6695 came to be rejected.

4. The factual background of the case as has been set out in the present revision application are that on 26.7.2008, serial bomb blasts have taken place in Ahmedabad city and some incidents of bomb plantation took place at Surat city. Therefore, about 20 FIRs were registered at Ahmedabad and 15 FIRs were registered at Surat for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 122, 121, 302, 307, 427 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act etc., at different Police Stations.

On 12.11.2008, the investigating agency of the aforesaid crime has submitted the charge-sheet against 94 accused persons (including absconding accused) for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 121-A, 124-A, 153-A(1)(b), 302, 307, 326, 435, 427, 465, 468, 471 of IPC and sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Explosive Substance Act 1908 and sections 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and under sections 25(1)(B)(A) and 27 of the Arms Act 1959, sections 65, 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and sections 3 and 4 of the Damage to the Public Property Act. Thereafter, on different dates, several supplementary charge-sheets were submitted by the investigating agency pursuant to aforesaid crime, till date about 80 accused persons are booked by the investigating agency belong to different parts of State of India. That the present petitioners are also arrested by the investigating agency on different dates and they are in judicial custody since last more than 9 years.

5. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners, who are the accused facing trial in well known serial bomb blast case of State of Gujarat, have tendered the application below Exh.6695 in Sessions Case No.38 of 2009 during the course of trial, under section 319 of the Code for arraigning secret witness No.957 as accused on the strength of his police statement, statement before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code, his examination-in-chief recorded by the learned trial Court as well as other material available on record.

6. The above referred application below Exh.6695 in Sessions Case No.38 of 2009 has been dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 15.12.2017.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.12.2017, invoking the provisions of section 397 read with section 401 of the Code, the present petitioners, inter alia, contended that secret witness was attending secret meeting with the accused who are put to trial and he was in the knowledge of the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused who are facing trial and also he was regularly attending the meeting and in the said meeting, there was talk as regards to loss occurred to Muslim community during riot took place in 2002 and in retaliation thereof and for taking revenge against the State as well as particular community, they were discussing at large and therefore, secret witness who has deposed was in the knowledge of all these affairs and therefore, he has also become one of the co-conspirator. It is further contended that even subsequent to series bomb blast took place in Ahmedabad city and several bombs came to be planted at Surat were also in the k