Warrant against approver in Mishra murder case
Final argument commenced in the 37-year-old assassination case of former railway minister Lalit Narayan Mishra in a Delhi court.
New Delhi: Final argument commenced in the 37-year-old assassination case of former railway minister Lalit Narayan Mishra Wednesday in a Delhi court followed by issuance of a fresh bailable warrant against an approver. Mishra was killed in a 1975 bomb attack in Bihar.
Additional District Judge Vinod Goel issued bailable warrant against Vikram, who was named as an accused in the case by probe agency, who later turned approver in the case.
The warrant was issued after defence counsel Seema Gulati told the court that his presence is also required during final argument in the case.
The court had earlier also issued a bailable warrant against him, which could not be served. The court has directed that warrant be sent to all his addresses given by Vikram to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Meanwhile, the public prosecutor advanced his argument in the case and apprised the court that the accused involved in the case belong to `Anand Marg`, an organisation, which turned violent against government policy.
"Anand Marg got violent and started opposing ongoing government policy after 1960," said the public prosecutor.
He apprised court about the formation of Anand Marg and the activities that organisation was involved.
"Anand Marg created a cadre against the government policy terming it as corrupt and immoral practice," the prosecutor said.
Mishra was killed after a bomb blast at a function at Samastipur Railway station in Bihar Jan 3, 1975. CBI had chargesheeted five accused including Ranjan Dwivedi. Mishra, injured in the attack, died in hospital the next day.
One of the accused had died. The other three accused are Ananda Marg members - Santoshanand Avadhuta, Sudevananda Avadhuta and Gopalji.
The accused had approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the trial against them in the murder case. The apex court had dismissed their plea on the ground that the proceedings could not be terminated merely because they had not been concluded in the past 37 years.