Mumbai: Even though the Bombay High Court has lifted the stay on the trial against Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal for his role as a 26/11 terror attack handler, the proceedings may take some time to resume over administrative issues.
Case Shifted Between Special Courts
The court that originally heard the case before the stay order is now designated as a special court for cases involving MPs and MLAs. The case has since been transferred to a different court, which functions as a special court for corruption cases.
On Monday, when the case was taken up, special public prosecutor Ujwal Nikam told the court that since the case falls under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and was investigated by the state, and because the state has now sought a notification to set up a special UAPA court, the hearing must be adjourned. The special judge accepted this submission and postponed the matter to December 8 for further compliance.
The trial in the case was stayed by the Bombay High Court upon hearing the petition filed by the Delhi police, the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of External Affairs, which had challenged the trial court’s 2018 order directing them to hand over confidential documents to Jundal.
Jundal, who claimed that he was deported from Saudi Arabia in 2012, had sought certain travel-related documents from Indian authorities, claiming they were vital to his defence. He sought the production of documents to show he was taken into custody in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, before being brought to India.
Passport Revoked, Emergency Document Issued
During the trial, a passport officer testified that Jundal’s passport was revoked in 2006 because he had fled India after a large cache of arms and ammunition was seized, and he was found linked to the consignment’s transport. However, during cross-examination, the officer admitted that an emergency passport was issued to Jundal in 2012, around the time he was reportedly arrested by the Delhi Police.
The defence had argued that an emergency passport is issued only to bring back someone. Hence, they claimed that he was not arrested by the Delhi Police but was brought back by an agency. The trial court, however, had asked the prosecution to hand over those documents.
Court Rejects Plea on Place of Arrest
The Delhi Police challenged the order before the High Court and claimed that he was apprehended outside the airport. The HC had rejected his petition, observing, “The place of arrest loses significant relevance once the accused is in lawful judicial custody and has the full opportunity to defend himself”. It noted that Ansari had not raised any objection regarding his arrest before the Delhi magistrate when first produced for remand.
“The request for documents appears to be a belated and tactical manoeuvre lacking any substantive justification,” the court had further said.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
