HC verdict on 7/11 accused ‘shocking and disappointing’: A N Roy

Interview: Ex-police chief says they were confident of a positive outcome as the trial court had ruled in the prosecution’s favour. He says he is ‘very proud’ of the investigation

MUMBAI: “Shocking and disappointing” is how A N Roy describes the acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai serial train blasts case. Roy was Mumbai police commissioner when seven explosions ripped through local trains, Mumbai’s lifeline, on July 11, 2006 – killing 188 people and injuring 817. While acquitting the accused on Monday, the Bombay High Court pointed to glaring loopholes in the investigation, saying law-enforcing agencies were guilty of “creating a false appearance of having solved the case by presenting that the accused had been brought to justice”.

A.N. Roy - HT Photo by Girish Srivastav 09 July 2005

Roy retired in 2010 as Maharashtra director general of police. In an interview to Mayura Janwalkar, the senior IPS officer, who took the stand before the trial court as prosecution witness No 185, says he is “very proud that the investigation was done very professionally and independently”. Excerpts from an interview.

It all happened so quickly. Almost as soon as the news reached us, seven blasts had taken place in the trains. I visited the sites of all the explosions. It was the most ghastly incident.

The next day, the government handed the investigation from the Railway Police to the Mumbai Police, and we handed it over to the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). In almost all cases of serial bomb blasts since 1993, you always find some evidence at the site. But this was a ‘zero starting point’ to begin your investigation. With heavy rain, everything was washed out at the site.

Over time, a very thorough, painstaking and professional investigation was done. It took a few days but we started getting some inputs and we had some people arrested. After completing the investigation, we charge sheeted only 13 people.

None at all. In fact, we had all the support we needed, from within the police force and from central agencies and other government agencies, whenever needed. I am very proud that the investigation was done very professionally and independently.

The high court’s judgment has come as a great shock and disappointment to me. We were fairly confident, after the judgment of the trial court, that the case was strong. There was enough evidence against all the accused, and that’s how the conviction took place (by the Special MCOCA court in 2015). It is a detailed, speaking order on the role of each of the accused and how the conviction was awarded. But we respectfully accept the judgement of the high court. The only way is to challenge it in the higher court.

The accused kept filing all kinds of petitions, making allegations and insinuations against the investigating agencies. They repeatedly said they had been tortured and ill-treated. Each of the accused would go to the trial court, then the Bombay High Court. They also approached the Supreme Court many times, about bail, being ill-treated, not getting a document, not getting certain facilities. This delayed the trial but we put up with it. Moreover, neither the trail court, nor the Supreme Court passed a single order in their favour. Not one allegation against the investigating agencies stuck.

These allegations were gone into during the trial and also in the pre-trial period. The process of recording confessions under MCOCA is prescribed by the law. The DCP records the confession and he has to send it to the judicial magistrate. The judicial magistrate asks the accused whether he was tortured, threatened or whether he is making a confession voluntarily.

Now, after 15-18 years, they say this (allegations of torture) and they are believed. All accused who give confessions retract them on the advice of their lawyers. This torture story was examined by the trial court in the case of each accused.

These accused mentioned the names of officers, senior and junior. The high court too mentioned those names. But these officers were not given an opportunity to be heard by the court. When you name someone in a judgment, the person must be heard. Without a hearing, it does not meet the principles of natural justice.

Also, by naming these officers, you are exposing them to threats and personal harm. If any aggrieved person wants to target them, their names have become known. This is a serious area of concern to me.

As police commissioner I had sanctioned the application of MCOCA in this case. I stood in the trial court for a full five days, from morning to evening, giving evidence, being cross-examined. UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) came later; there was only MCOCA. My sanction was not in question. I believe what is in question is the prior approval for the application of MCOCA by a DIG, additional commissioner-level officer. This is a legal issue and it will be considered by the Supreme Court.

The charge sheet in this case was filed in November 2006. The IM accused was caught in 2008. During the IM investigation, the accused made a confession, saying he had done this (7/11 bomb blast), at the instance of his gang leader. The ATS took custody of him but their investigation revealed that nothing matched. Then he simply told the police “main to darr ke maare bola (I said it out of fear).” His statement was recorded before a magistrate.

Even as a defence witness, the trial court said his testimony cannot be believed and his story fell through. The special public prosecutor had shown the court that there was enough material on record in so-called manuals of the Al-Qaeda and LeT, which mention that whenever one of their members is caught, those who are outside must accept responsibility (for the attack) to create confusion. It’s their typical modus operandi.

I read in the newspapers that one of the witnesses was also a witness in the Ghatkopar blast in 2002. I don’t know, he may have been. If someone has been a witness in six to eight cases consecutively, then you can say something is wrong. Also, if someone was a witness in cases four years apart, how would you even know?