All acquitted in 2008 Jaipur terror blasts: Why the HC rejected police’s ‘shoddy’ and ‘botched’ probe

When and where did the blasts take place?

On May 13, 2008, nine bombs, using RDX, exploded at eight locations in Jaipur’s crowded old city between 7.15 pm and 7.45 pm. The sequence of the blasts was so planned that people fleeing one blast site ran into more explosions at others. The explosives were tied to bicycles.

The first bomb went off around 7.15 pm at the bustling Johari Bazaar. As panic spread, more bombs exploded at the Hanuman Mandir, Hawa Mahal, Badi Chaupad, Tripolia Bazar, and Chandpole. Being a Tuesday, the Hanuman Mandir was milling with devotees.

Who carried out the bombings?

A day after the attacks, Indian Mujahideen (IM), which was at the time still a little-known outfit, sent an email to a media house, claiming responsibility for the blasts. The senders of the email attached a video of a bicycle laden with explosives.

Police confirmed the serial number of the bicycle matched one of those that were used in the attacks.

The IM had earlier claimed responsibility — also by an email — for the Uttar Pradesh court attacks of 2007. The organisation was born in Bhatkal, Karnataka, in 2000, and its members (even though they did not at the time identify themselves as IM) were involved in multiple terrorist incidents beginning with the attack on the American Center in Kolkata in 2002.

The identities of the main IM operatives, and the back story of the organisation, were revealed after the Batla House encounter in Delhi in September 2008.

And what did Rajasthan Police find in its investigation?

According to the chargesheets filed by the Rajasthan Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), investigators questioned the accused who were arrested in cases of similar bomb blasts in Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Surat, and Delhi.

The first person to be arrested in the case was Shahbaz Hussain, who the police claimed had sent the email the day after the blasts on behalf of the IM. Hussain was acquitted by the special court in 2019.

Thereafter, according to the chargesheets, Mohammed Saif, one of the men arrested by Delhi Police in the Batla House encounter case, told police in October 2008 about the Jaipur bomb blasts.

Saif allegedly said that apart from him, Ariz Khan alias Junaid, Mirza Shadab Baig alias Malik, Mohammed Khalid, Saifur, Sajid Chota, Sajid Bada, Salman, Sarwar, and Mohammed Atif Amin had placed the bombs.

Two of these alleged bombers, Mohammed Atif Amin and Chota Sajid, were killed in the Batla House encounter, police said.

How did the trial in the case proceed?

The trial took place in the Special Court for the blasts against five accused named in the chargesheet: Shahbaz Hussain, Mohammed Sarvar Azmi, Mohammed Saif, Saifurrehman Ansari, and Mohammed Salman. The verdict was delivered in December 2019.

Special Judge Ajay Kumar Sharma sentenced Mohammed Sarvar Azmi, Mohammed Saif, Saifurrehman Ansari, and Mohammed Salman to death, and acquitted Shahbaz Hussain.

After the case, the Special Public Prosecutor said the prosecution had presented nearly 1,300 witnesses due to which the trial took so long to be completed.

What has the Rajasthan High Court said in its verdict?

The four convicts sentenced to death appealed to the Rajasthan High Court. In its verdict acquitting Mohammed Sarvar Azmi, Mohammed Saif, Saifurrehman Ansari and Mohammed Salman (and upholding the acquittal of Shahbaz Hussain by the trial court), the High Court division Bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Sameer Jain came down heavily on the investigating agencies.

It said in its judgment that the investigation was “shoddy”, “botched”, and “not fair”, and that “nefarious means” were employed by investigating agencies. It listed a series of lapses — including “insufficient legal knowledge” and evidence that did not meet the mark — and directed the Rajasthan DGP to act against the erring officers of the investigating team.

The judgment questioned the credibility of identification parades conducted to identify the accused, and highlighted anomalies in the evidence such as bills for the purchase of the bicycles that were allegedly used to plant the bombs.

The court said that it was aware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to society in general and the families of the victims in particular by the fact that a heinous crime such as the terrorist attacks has to go unpunished. However, it said, the law does not permit courts to punish the accused based on moral conviction or suspicion alone.

“They (investigators) have approached this case in a callous manner, i.e., unbecoming of the members of uniformed posts. The approach of the Investigation Agency was plagued by insufficient legal knowledge, lack of proper training and insufficient expertise of investigation procedure, especially on issues like cyber crimes and even basic issues like admissibility of evidence.

“The failure on the part of the Investigation Agency has frustrated the case of the prosecution and the evidence so recorded is not fulfilling the chain of evidence,” the court said in its judgment.