- (1.) This Court passed the following order on29.02.2016: "We have perused the counter affidavit as also the additionalaffidavit filed by the State of Maharashtra. We have also heard learned counselfor the petitioner. It emerges that out of 34 witnesses, cited by theprosecution, some of the material witnesses have already been examined whereas8 further material witnesses are yet to be examined. The names furnished to usby Mr. Ramesh Malhari Dhumal, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Aheri, Gadchiroli,who is assisting the counsel representing the State of Maharashtra, are asunder: 1. Shrikant Pochreddi Gaddewar 2. Ravindra Manohar Kumbhare 3. Ramesh K. Yede 4. Raju Poriya Atram 5. Atul Shantaram Avhad 6. Suhas Prakash Bawche 7. Shri Vyas (JMFC, Aheri) 8. Apekha Ramteke At the present moment, we consider it just and appropriate todirect the trial court to hold day-to-day trial with effect from 04.03.2016 soas to record the statements of all material witnesses. The statements of thematerial witnesses, referred to hereinabove, be positively concluded before thenext date of hearing. List againon 04.04.2016."
(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Nishant R.Katneshwarkar, learned counsel representing the respondent - State ofMaharashtra, that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, allmaterial witnesses have been examined, and also cross-examined. He furtherstates, that the following formal eight witnesses are still to be examined: 1. Dr.Amitabh Rajan, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Sanctioning Authority underthe Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 2. ShriK.P. Bakshi, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Sanctioning Authority under theUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 3. Francies Pareira, Nodal Officer, Vodafone 4. Rajneesh Kumar, Nodal Officer, BSNL 5. Authorised Signatory, Bharti Airtel 6. Bhavesh Nikam, Scientific Officer, CFSL, Mumbai 7. K.D. Korde, Superintendent, Civil Judge, Senior Division,Gadchiroli. 8. Shri Ramesh Dhumal, Sub Divisional Police Officer, second Investigating Officer.
(3.) It is submitted, that if the petitioner iskept under detention for a period of two days from 16.04.2016, the abovementioned eight witnesses will also be examined. It is the contention of thelearned counsel for the respondent, that in case the petitioner is ordered tobe released from jail, he is likely to indulge himself in the anti-nationalactivities.;