JUDGMENT 1. We have heard Mr. Jain at length several times in this case. He wants to raise certain more points in this habeas corpus petition. We cannot grant any further time as we had already heard Mr. Jain several times in this case on the last time having felt that this Court was reluctant to entertain the petition on the ground of maintainability in this Court as there were several questions involved which were within the exclusive domane of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, he wanted time to back instructions to withdraw the petition. He submits that he has no instructions to withdraw the same and wants further time to argue the matter. We regret we would not grant any further time. 2. Petitioner was arrested by the Rajasthan Police in Ganga Nagar in the Month of August, 1985 and was handed over to CBI, Jodhpur for investigation. He is in custody ever since. His case was investigated by the CBI and till then the remand was being given by the learned Addl. CJM, CBI Cases, Jaipur . The petitioner moved the petition challenging the remand orders on various grounds. The petitioner's case was investigated by the CBI and CBI finding no case against them filed final report before the Designated Court, Rajasthan. The learned judge of the Designated.Court was not satisfied with the findings arrived at by the Investigating Officer and took cognizance of the various offences against the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. The petitioner filed the bail application before the learned Designated Court and this Court also under Section 439 Cr.P.C. which did not find favour in the Court and the same was rejected. The petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition and challenged the vires of the several provisions of the Act mainly on the ground that TADA Act is subversive of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India as well as the principles of the Constitution. The submission is that though the Act has been made for speedy trial of certain offences in-terrorist affected areas and the matters connected therewith yet ever since 1989 the accused is in jail and nothing has been done so far despite the fact that CBI who had investigated the case did not find any case for proceeding against the petitioner. The submission is that though the Act has been made for speedy trial of certain offences in-terrorist affected areas and the matters connected therewith yet ever since 1989 the accused is in jail and nothing has been done so far despite the fact that CBI who had investigated the case did not find any case for proceeding against the petitioner. The further submission of the learned counsel is that when there is no case made out on facts, this Court has ample jurisdiction to entertain the bail application and grant the same during the pendency of the hapeas corpus petition. Learned counsel has cited various cases also . 3. learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State submits that charges have already been framed in this case and 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and there being the mix questions of law and facts, having been raised in this habeas corpus petition, this Court should not entertain the same and if the habeas corpus petition is not maintainable then it is open to the petitioner to go to the Supreme Court and move an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. or Section 20(8) of the TADA Act. 4. Mr. Lodha, appearing for the Central Government, subscribes to the sub-missions advanced by learned Addl. Advocate General and the counsel for the CBI. 5. We refrain ourselves from going into the details of the arguments advanced as it is likely to prejudice the case of the petitioner, if he moves to Supreme Court in this case. Suffice it to say that there are two decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court which restrict the jurisdiction of this Court i.e. Ushmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and others v. State of Gujarat, 1988(2) SCC 271 wherein their Lordships held as under : "The Act being a special Act must prevail in respect of the jurisdiction and power of the High Court to entertain an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code or by recourse to its inherent powers under Section 482. Under the scheme of the Act, there is complete exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court in any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence punishable under the Act or any rule made thereunder. Under the scheme of the Act, there is complete exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court in any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence punishable under the Act or any rule made thereunder. There is contrariety between the provisions of the Act and those contained in the Code ." There is a recent decision also reported in 1991(1) SC 549 Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and another . In that case also their Lordships have considered the question of granting bail during the pendency of the habeas corpus petition. Their Lordships considered the case of State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1441 and several other cases, and explained the power vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as for granting bail. Though this case was in respect of the detention orders passed under COFEPOSA, 1974 yet caution was given in dealing with such matters and held that jurisdiction by it very nature is to be used sparingly and in circumstances where no other efficacious remedy is available. 6. Considering all the matters we are of the opinion that petitioner had the remedy of approaching the Supreme Court under Section 20(8) of the TADA Act. It is true that initially the accused has been kept under arrest without showing him the cause for being arrested and that was against all canons of law and this Court would have granted then the indulgence of being released but the matter could not be listed before the Court during those days due to the lawyers' strike by then the illegal arrest, if any, had been regularised by the orders of the Court and no illegality remained thereafter. It may also be observed that the CBI in this case has filed a final report but still the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance and it has not only taken cognizance but has also framed charges and proceeding with the trial. 7. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this habeas corpus petition and we dismiss the same. 7. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this habeas corpus petition and we dismiss the same. We may also observe that one of the reasons for our dismissal is that challenge to the vires of the Act is pending before the Constitutional Bench of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as is borne out from some inter locutary orders passed in some bail applications but that would not afford any jurisdiction to us in this matter. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. *******