Premium
This is an archive article published on February 23, 2010

Headley real perpetrator,call Rahul: defence

The defence in the 26/11 trial wants filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt’s son Rahul as a witness,along with gym instructor Vilas Warak,National Investigation Agency chief S C Sinha and Gujarat DGP S S Khandwawala,to help bring out the role of alleged LeT operative David Headley in the attack.

The defence in the 26/11 trial wants filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt’s son Rahul as a witness,along with gym instructor Vilas Warak,National Investigation Agency (NIA) chief S C Sinha and Gujarat DGP S S Khandwawala,to help bring out the role of alleged LeT operative David Headley in the attack.

Headley,arrested by the FBI,had allegedly scouted the site attacked on 26/11 and other potential targets across the country.

Ejaz Naqvi,lawyer for accused Sabahuddin Ahmed,moved the plea for the four witnesses on Monday. “These witnesses are important as their deposition would show that the real perpetrator of the crime is Headley who is in FBI custody and not my client Ahmed who has been arrested by the Mumbai Crime Branch on charges of handing over the target maps,allegedly prepared by co-accused Fahim Ansari,to the LeT.”

Naqvi alleged Bhatt and Warak were in constant touch with Headley,“and their deposition would throw light on their alleged role in the case”.

Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam opposed the plea. “The plea is like beating around the bush. Investigations are being carried out by a different agency against Headley. He was part of a different module of the terror group,and Ansari and Ahmed were part of a different module.”

The court has reserved it order on the plea till Tuesday.

Judge M L Tahaliyani on Monday rejected Ansari’s plea for bail so that he could appoint a lawyer after Shahid Azmi was gunned down on February 11. Azmi’s assistant Saba Qureshi informed the court that she is willing to take up the case and proceed with the final arguments,provided the accused accepted her. Ansari’s family,however,told the media that they would continue their search for a senior lawyer.

Story continues below this ad

The court also took on record the additional formal evidence of 43 affidavits filed by the prosecution. The court observed it was a mistake on the part of the prosecution to file the evidence after the accused statement had been completed.

“However,since the prosecution has filed charges against the accused regarding all the 166 deceased in the case,it is the court’s duty to ensure that evidence is taken on record using its own discretion. Thus the prosecution’s plea is allowed,” the court observed.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement