Mumbai: The anti-terrorism squad (ATS) on Tuesday clarified that it will not file the chargesheet in the 7/11 Mumbai serial blasts case before the second week of November, when the Centre and Pakistan are due to hold joint secretarylevel talks in New Delhi. Though the Centre has not asked the ATS to hurry the chargesheet, it has said it wants to hand over evidence of a Pakistani hand in the blasts during the Delhi talks.
The ATS said it will not file the document in a hurry, but will submit it to the court by the stipulated deadline, which is December 5, along with all the evidence available against the accused. However, the evidence collected so far can be submitted to the Centre to be handed to Pakistan during the talks, the ATS said.
ATS chief Krish Pal Raghuvanshi, who has personally interrogated all the accused, said that the investigation was being done meticulously and in a professional manner and the police were gathering all evidence.
Talking about the alleged Pakistani hand, Raghuvanshi said, “We were not collecting the evidence against Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) or Pakistan, but against those involved in the blasts, which killed around 200 people. During the investigation, many secrets were revealed by the arrested men and we have informed the court about it.’’
Seven bombs planted in seven local trains went off on July 11, killing 192 people and injuring over 400. So far, the police have 13 people in custody in the blast case. Three other men were discharged since there was “insufficient evidence of their involvement in the case’’, police said.
All the accused were booked under MCOCA, a stringent law introduced in Maharashtra in 1999 to combat organised crime. When asked about when the chargesheet would be filed, the ATS chief said, “No government can direct the police to file a chargesheet. As of now, we have no direction or compulsion from the government to file the chargesheet. In a normal exercise, a chargesheet is filed in 90 days. Under the provisions of MCOCA we can file the chargesheet in 180 days. We can also request the court for an extension and file the chargesheet even later to give all the evidence. We will try to file it in the given time-frame.’’
Does the ATS have clinching evidence about Pakistan’s involvement? “Our duty is to submit the evidence to the court. It will be up to the court to decide whether it is clinching or not,’’ he added.
The ATS also has the option of filing a supplementary chargesheet later. “In the 1993 blast case, one of the accused, Abu Salem, was not arrested but the chargesheet was filed and the trial began. After his arrest in India, the CBI filed a supplementary chargesheet against him. To file the chargesheet against an accused, he must be arrested,’’ Raghuvanshi said.
The ATS has so far not found any link between the Aurangabad arms haul case and the Karnavati Express blast. However, it is probing the link between the Mumbai train bombings and the Malegaon blasts. “There may or may not be a link between the two,” he said.
Police sources said they have confessional statements from several of the accused in the 7/11 case. The accused allegedly said they underwent training in a Pakistan terror camp. These accused include Faisal Shaikh, Muzammil, Dr Tanvir Ansari, Zameer Shaikh, Sohail and Kamal Ansari.
Accused was tortured: Kin
Mumbai: Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh, the brother of Mohammed Ali Shaikh, an accused in the 7/11 blasts case, has alleged in an application made before a special MCOCA court that Mohammed was tortured in custody by high ranking police officials.
“The court has ordered the superintendent of Arthur Road jail to send Mohammed for a medical examination and submit a report by November 9 when the complaint would be taken up for hearing again,’’ said advocate Anjali Iyer.
Mohammed Shaikh is the man in whose Govandi home the bombs were allegedly assembled before being planted on suburban local trains. Mukhtar has said that he met Mohammed at Arthur Road jail on November 6 and he told him that he was assaulted by police officers. He claimed they wanted him to sign a confessional statement. Mohammed also said he was also threatened not to say a word about the torture to the court or his family would be falsely implicated in a criminal case.
Raj denies threats to 7/11 lawyers
Mumbai: Maharashtra Navnirman Sena president Raj Thackeray has denied allegations that he had warned lawyers not to represent those who are accused in the July 11, 2006, serial train blasts case.
In an affidavit submitted on Tuesday before the Bombay high vourt, where he is facing a contempt of court petition, Thackeray claimed that the media had “misinterpreted’’ and “grossly twisted’’ all his statements.
The contempt petition was filed by the voluntary organisations, Indian Association of Peoples Lawyers and Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights, after a nod from Maharashtra advocategeneral Ravi Kadam.
In a rally on July 16, 2006, to pay condolences to the victims of the serial train blasts, Thackeray had reportedly warned lawyers against representing accused arrested for the blasts conspiracy.
In his affidavit, Thackeray claimed his statements were misinterpreted, but at the same time the MNS chief said he had the right to protest and express his opinions against lawyers defending such accused. “What was said and what was intended by me was that my party would stage demonstrations against lawyers who accepted the brief of the accused in the bomb blasts,’’ said Thackeray adding that his statements were inspired by a “moral and social conscience’’.
While apologising to the court if any of his statements were offensive, Thackeray reiterated, “I am not going to physically prevent any lawyer from accepting briefs, but had appealed to their moral conscience.’’ The petition also claimed that the contempt charges were premature as at the time the statements were made, no case had been filed in any court.
In his letter approving the contempt charges, the A-G had said considering the reported statements made by Thackeray, a prima facie case was made out for criminal contempt of court as any conduct likely to deter an advocate is also interference with the course of justice.
The Times of India, November 8, 2006
