2008 serial blasts accused's plea against Gujarat rejected

Image
IANS Gandhinagar
Last Updated : Apr 05 2018 | 10:10 PM IST

A designated court on Thursday rejected a plea by three accused in 2008 serial blasts case in Gujarat, seeking contempt proceedings against the Gujarat government for causing delays in their trial.

The Ahmedabad serial blast in 2008 had claimed as many as 57 lives in 22 bomb blasts that took place in a span of two hours in the city on the evening of July 26.

An over 2000-page chargesheet was filed by the local police against 26 people and listed 50 absconders therein. The Gujarat High Court had designated the Ahmedabad City Sessions Court for conducting the serial blasts case proceedings.

Out of the five accused, Usman Agarbattiwala, Raziuddin Nasir and Imran Sheikh had filed a plea before the court to issue a showcause notice to the prosecution, the Gujarat government, and sought assurance that it would summon witnesses without any delay.

The petitioners also sought initiating contempt of court proceedings against the state government for what they described as "deliberate delay" in running the trial.

Against this plea, the prosecution stated that there had been no deliberate attempt by the state government to delay the proceedings and that application by the accused ought to be rejected as the applicants were "not at all trustworthy".

Terming it as "baseless and without any merit", the designated court on Thursday rejected the plea by the accused. The court also observed that there had never been a deliberate delay by the prosecution and hence rejection of the application.

Despite the charge-sheet of the case being filed in 2008, as there had been a stay on the trial of the case and after the Supreme Court vacated the stay, the proceedings began only post July 2011.

More than a thousand witnesses have been examined by the prosecution since then. Still the prosecution is yet to question any of the 26 identified star or secret witnesses in the case. The accused of the serial blast want the process to be speeded up as they had been lodged in jails as undertrials since their arrest.

All the accused were charged under Explosive Substances Act, Damage to Public Property Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, IT Act and Section 120(1A) of the IPC for waging war against the state, Section 153(A) that refers to creating rift between two communities, Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 302 of IPC (murder).

--IANS

amc/nir

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 05 2018 | 10:02 PM IST

Next Story