Trial in 13/7 Mumbai blasts likely to be delayed further

Almost 10 years after three coordinated bomb explosions in Mumbai left 27 dead and 127 injured, the trial in the 13/7 blasts case is less likely to start in the near future

Almost 10 years after three coordinated bomb explosions in Mumbai left 27 dead and 127 injured, the trial in the 13/7 blasts case is less likely to start in the near future.

HT Image

The framing of charges is being delayed as some of the accused are insisting for their physical presence before the trial court to respond to the allegations to be framed against them. However, the Maharashtra government has issued an order prohibiting the physical production of those on death row in other terror-related cases.

On July 13, 2011, a series of blasts took place at Zaveri Bazaar, Opera House and Dadar between 6.52pm and 7.05pm. Mumbai Police had arrested 11 accused and said they belonged to an outfit named Indian Mujahideen.

In 2017, special public prosecutor Ujwal Nikam had moved a plea for issuance of production warrant against the accused for a speedy trial in the case. Most of the accused had been lodged in Taloja jail, Tihar jail and Hyderabad jail for various offences. Hence, the prosecution sought for their production.

Two years later on March 29, 2019, the special MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) court passed an order to frame the charges against the 11 arrested accused, a crucial step to pave a way to begin the trial. However, till date, the court has been able to frame charges against only a few accused as the rest have been insisting on physical appearance before the court.

The prosecution has expressed its inability to produce all the accused before the court as few of them are facing capital punishment in the Hyderabad blasts case. One of the accused, Ajaz Shaikh, who is facing a death sentence in connection with the Hyderabad twin blasts case, had approached the court for his physical production for framing of charges and also to meet his lawyer for further aid. The prosecution as well as the prison authorities informed the court that the state government passed a general order for the non-removal of present applicant from prison as he has been facing a death sentence passed in another case.

Considering this, the court rejected Shaikh’s application, observing, “Frequent directions have been issued earlier for proceeding expeditiously into the matter. The various other accused persons are however, not cooperating for framing of the charge on the similar ground as that of the present applicant raised, for insisting their physical presence before the court.”

The court in its order has hence said, “The accused persons concerned must cooperate to proceed further expeditiously, otherwise the appropriate procedure will be adopted in furthering the proceeding.”