The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered framing of stringent provisions, including ‘waging war against India’, against Wasim Akram Malik, the main accused in the bomb blast outside the court’s reception. Sixteen people were killed and 79 injured in the blast on September 7, 2011.
If proved, the provision attracts death penalty. The direction came on an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the case, against the September 4 order of the trial court which dropped the sections.
“The facts and material evidence relied upon justify framing of charges under the appropriate sections of the IPC. Charges under IPC section 121 (waging war against India), 121A (conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121), 122 (collecting arms etc, with intention of waging war against India) and 123 (concealing existence of design to wage war) read with section 120B (criminal conspiracy) will be framed by the trial court,” said a bench headed by justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Accepting the NIA’s argument that the intention of the accused was not to cause injury to a particular person but the public in general, the court said, “We allow the present appeal and set aside para 24 of the trial court order discharging the respondent (Malik) and holding that there is no ground or material to frame charges under section 121 of IPC.”
“We record and note the contention that the bomb blast was not targeted to cause injury to a particular person but (the bomb) was kept at the reception counter of the Delhi High Court that issued passes that enables litigants and others to enter the main gate of court building.”
The bench rejected Malik’s argument that unless security forces are specifically targeted, section 121 is not attracted.
Dropping the stringent provisions against Malik, the special NIA judge had said the explosion of the bomb and subsequent assertion of the person sending the email, by itself do not make out offences under these three sections. “It cannot be said the act had been committed to ‘wage a war’ against the government of India,” the trial court had said.