German Bakery case in Bombay HC: Defence vs prosecution; the twists and turns

In addition, the defence argued that a magistrate court could not have taken “cognisance” of offences under the UAPA but a special court. And, in the absence of a special court, the sessions court of that particular division can take cognisance, it was contended.

The remand proceedings, it pointed out, were carried out by the magistrate court. The prosecution, however, relied on the provision of the Procedure of Criminal Code, saying the magistrate court had the authority to take cognisance.

[related-post]

The defence had also claimed the absence of CCTV inside the bakery. The High Court was on October 6, 2015 shown videograbs of three recordings showing what happened at Pune’s German Bakery moments before and after the explosion on February 13, 2010 – an explosion, a man’s movements who the prosecution claims is Yasin Bhatkal and a bakery reduced to rubble.

The man seen with a rucksack and a black shoulder bag was claimed by the prosecution to be Bhatkal.

German Bakery Blast site

Defence lawyers Mehmood Pracha and Tahiwar Pathan had argued there were two panchanamas initially drawn regarding the collection of articles from the crime scene. The second one, they asserted, was an afterthought and shows seizure of VCRs and video cassettes.

Another crucial point raised both by the prosecution and defence was over the presence of RDX used in the crime.

The prosecution had stressed on the recovery of RDX from the blast site matching with around 1.1 kg found at Baig’s house. The defence, however, cast doubt on the consistency of the language used to refer to the RDX reportedly found at Baig’s house by the authorities.

They pointed out that RDX was referred to as “powder”, “black sticky substance” and even “five solid pieces” on different occasions.

The prosecution had shown the recovery from the place Baig was staying at, namely “White House” in Udgir. But Pracha and Pathan argued that Baig was staying at a separate premise. They argued that neither his alleged flatmate at “White House” nor the owner of the building had ever testified in court.

The prosecution had also argued that in the crime, a mobile handset was used as a triggering device, but the defence countered it saying the identification of the particular brand of handset was done by a private person and not by an expert.

They argued the particular handset the prosecution was referring to does not function without a SIM whereas parts of the one allegedly used showed the absence of SIM card.

On witnesses, Thakare had argued the two witnesses were working with Baig and were close to him.

In that scenario, he had asked why it did not stir up their conscience when the news of Baig’s conviction and subsequent sentencing had spread everywhere.
Another argument in Baig’s defence was the station diary entries maintained at two police stations, ATS Kalachowky police station in Mumbai and Udgir police station. It was argued that entries were made on September 7 and 8 in 2010 whereas the diary was printed only after September 16, 2011. Besides, the station diary at Udgir was on a “white paper” and not in “printed form”, the defence argued.

They also argued that according to station diary, one person at the station is shown as the station house officer, duty officer as well as senior inspector.