The defence in the German Bakery blast case claimed Tuesday that explosives recovered from the blast site was not similar to the explosives that were shown to have been recovered from the house of convict Himayat Baig, the main accused in the case.
The defence also sought to strike Section 43E off the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Section introduces the principles of presumption of guilt, whereby if arms, explosives are recovered from the possession of an accused and a similar set of arms or explosives have been used to commit that offence, the court shall presume that the accused has committed such offence.
By the logic of the above clause, the defence claimed, in case a petrol bomb was used for a terror attack, everyone found in possession of petrol, including lakhs of vehicle owners, would be guilty. Defence advocate Mahmood Pracha said in Himayat Baig’s case the explosives recovered from the blast site and that recovered from Baig’s house were different in their composition. He added that the investigating agency had failed to prove that RDX was the main explosive used in the February 2010 blast that left 17 dead and several injured.
“What is so special about RDX apart from the scintillating effect that the name creates. The agency touted the use of RDX only to create effect. How can they tell the press that RDX was found when reports say that it was only in very small traces,” said Pracha.