HC allows 7/11 accused to examine DCPs who recorded IM menís confession
- Nepal Earthquake: Rains, fresh tremors hamper rescue works, toll tops 2,500
- Nepal earthquake: 22 climbers dead in avalanche on Mt Everest
- Nepal Earthquake: Air services resumed to Kathmandu
- NDRF rescue team begins sifting through rubble in Nepal
- Heavy rains likely in quake-hit Nepal, warns Indian Meteorological Dept
Grajnting relief to the 13 alleged SIMI members facing trial in the 7/11 train blasts, the Bombay High Court on Monday allowed them to examine the officers who recorded the confessions of three alleged Indian Mujahideen (IM) members. The three were among the 21 IM men who had allegedly claimed responsibility of all major blasts across the country since 2005.
A special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court had turned down an application by the 13 men demanding the examination of three DCPs who allegedly recorded the statements of the three IM men. The first five IM men were arrested in September 2008 by the Anti-terrorism Squad (ATS).
The accused had urged the court to allow the examination of the DCPs and produce Call Data Records (CDRs) that were being used against them by the ATS.
Defence lawyers Yug Chaudhry and Khan Abdul Wahab contended that the accused were not even in Mumbai at the time of the incident, they were illegally detained much before they were shown arrested and their mobile phones were in use even after their arrest.
Chaudhry said if the accused were convicted in the case, they could be facing death sentence. "Do they not have the right to prove that someone else has done it?"
On Monday, Justice A M Thipsay allowed the appeal and permitted the 13 accused to summon and examine the DCPs concerned before the trial court.
The state government, however, did not seek a stay on the court's order. Public Prosecutor Revati Dere said they were awaiting a copy of the court's order, based on which they would decide the next course of action.
The prosecution had opposed the petition saying that this would prejudice the accused facing a separate trial in the cases related to the IM. The special court cited the same reason for turning down the application of the accused in the 7/11 blasts case.