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

Mulund blast accused Mulla granted bail

Relying on Principal Sessions Judge’s report that Adnan Mulla,an accused in the 2003 local train blasts,had been illegally detained,the Bombay High Court on Monday granted him bail.

Relying on Principal Sessions Judge’s report that Adnan Mulla,an accused in the 2003 local train blasts,had been illegally detained,the Bombay High Court on Monday granted him bail. However,the state government has obtained a stay on the bail order for four weeks so that they could approach the Supreme Court to appeal against the order.

The division bench of Justice B H Marlapalle and Justice V K Tahilramani granted Mulla bail on a sum of Rs one lakh. Three other accused in the case are already out on bail.

On March 13,2003,a blast took place in a local train at suburban Mulund station killing 16 persons and injuring several others.

According to the prosecution,Mulla was driving the vehicle that was used by the other accused to carry out the blasts. Saquib Nachan,the main accused in the case,was Mulla’s brother-in-law.

Mulla was arrested on June 9,2003,but he argued that he had been detained much earlier,and when he refused to give statement against the other accused,he was made a co-accused in Mulund case.

The High Court had earlier ordered inquiry,and report submitted by Principal Sessions Judge in 2008 confirmed that Mulla was in illegal police custody since May 5,2003.

In 2006,the High Court had rejected his bail application. But after the sessions judge’s report on illegal detention came,he filed fresh application in special POTA court. The POTA court rejected it,and Mullah moved High Court again.

Story continues below this ad

The judges on Monday held that the circumstances have changed and that the POTA judge should have considered Principal Sessions Judge’s report on Mullah’s illegal detention. Mulla is accused of ferrying some of the co-accused to a training camp where bomb-making was taught to them. He was also accused of transporting an AK-47 rifle to a co-accused.

However,the High Court has said that prosecution’s case does not indicate that “Appellant (Mulla) himself underwent arms training”. Judges said,“Trial court failed to consider the changed circumstances.”

“The evidence can’t be,as of now,read as to hold that there is sufficient evidence to record a conviction against him on the basis that his engagement and involvement was in the entire operation”,the court said.

Trial in the case — which also encompasses blasts at Vile Parle and Mumbai Central in the same year — has been stayed by the Supreme Court.

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

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