HC notice to NIA on bail applications of 2 IM operatives
The National Investigation Agency was on Monday asked by the Delhi High Court to file its response on the bail applications of two suspected operatives of terror outfit Indian Mujahideen (IM), facing trial for their alleged involvement in hatching a conspiracy to carry out terror strikes in the country.
New Delhi: The National Investigation Agency was on Monday asked by the Delhi High Court to file its response on the bail applications of two suspected operatives of terror outfit Indian Mujahideen (IM), facing trial for their alleged involvement in hatching a conspiracy to carry out terror strikes in the country.
A bench of Justices P K Bhasin and V P Vaish issued notice to NIA on the bail applications moved by suspected IM modules -- Imran Khan and Syed Maqbool and sought reply by January 22.
They were arrested in connection with various terror strikes carried out by the militant outfit across the country.
The two accused has sought setting aside trial court`s September decision, which had dismissed their bail applications.
"The impugned order of Special NIA Court on face of it suffers from apparent errors and is completely incorrect in light of the facts and law as laid down by the Supreme Court," their counsel Mehmood Paracha told the court.
NIA had filed the charge sheet against Imran Khan and Syed Maqbool besides three others, Mohammad Danish Ansari, Mohammad Aftab Alam and Obaid-Ur-Rehman under various penal provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the IPC relating to conspiracy to commit certain offences against the state.
The counsel said in the present case "the prosecution has time and again during the probe of the matter prior to filing of final report sought extension of judicial custody of the accused persons primarily on the ground that the investigation is being conducted at different places in states like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka to collect evidence of the culpability of accused persons in the larger conspiracy hatched by the member of Indian Mujahiddin in the instant case".
"When the prosecution was unable to gather vital evidence for prosecuting the accused persons within 180 days it played a fraud on the court and in order to deny the accused persons their right of compulsory bail/bail by default an incomplete report was filed which was devoid of the information for reasons of which previously numerous extensions in custody of the accused persons as well as investigation period were granted," the applications said.