New Delhi, July 7 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail plea of alleged Indian Mujahideen media cell head Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy in the 2008 Delhi serial blasts case, holding that the gravity of the terror allegations, the material collected against him, and the advanced stage of the trial outweighed the long period of his incarceration as an undertrial.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain dismissed Peerbhoy’s appeal challenging a trial court order refusing him bail in the case arising out of the September 13, 2008 serial blasts in Delhi, which claimed 26 lives and left 135 people injured.
In its order, the Delhi High Court recorded that the allegations against the appellant were not confined to an isolated criminal act but formed part of a larger terrorist conspiracy with serious implications for the security, integrity and sovereignty of the nation.
“The present case is not a fit one for grant of bail,” the judgment said.
Peerbhoy, who has remained in custody for about 17 years, had sought bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration, parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail, and the delay in conclusion of the trial.
However, the Delhi High Court held that the prosecution had placed sufficient prima facie material to satisfy the threshold under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
According to the prosecution, Peerbhoy, a qualified computer engineer employed with Yahoo India at the relevant time, headed the media cell of the banned terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen and, along with co-accused Mubeen Kadar Shaikh, allegedly sent the email claiming responsibility for the Delhi serial blasts by hacking into the Wi-Fi network of a Mumbai-based company minutes before the explosions.
The Justice Singh-led Bench observed that the evidence on record showed the appellant had allegedly purchased the laptop used to transmit the terror email, while forensic examination also revealed the presence of file-erasing software and PDF documents matching those circulated with the email claiming responsibility for the attacks.
It further recorded that, out of 305 prosecution witnesses, evidence from 303 has already been recorded, with only 2 remaining, one of whom has been partly examined.
Referring to the appellant’s prolonged custody, the Delhi High Court said: “There is no doubt that the Appellant has remained in custody for a considerable period as an undertrial prisoner. However, it is pertinent to note that the trial is presently at its fag end and has reached the concluding stage.”
“Releasing the Appellant at this juncture, when the cross-examination of the remaining two witnesses is yet to be completed, could have an adverse impact on the ongoing trial proceedings,” it added.
Observing that the allegations concerned a larger terrorist conspiracy with implications for the nation’s security and sovereignty, the Justice Singh-led Bench noted that the appellant’s alleged technical expertise and role within the organisation suggested a continuing risk.
“The Appellant’s technical expertise combined with the leadership position attributed to him within the ‘Indian Mujahideen’, prima facie suggests that he is extremely well connected with the said organisation and its network, and the propensity of him getting involved in similar activities upon release, is extremely high,” the judgment said.
Observing that courts must balance individual liberty with public safety, it further said: “While considering the prayer for bail, the Court has to bear in mind not merely the right to life of the Appellant, but also the adverse impact that Appellant’s release may have on the right to life and safety of common citizens, having regard to the role attributed to him in the heinous crimes with which he has been charged.”
Dismissing the appeal, the Delhi High Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding the bail plea and would not influence the trial on merits.
It also directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within eight months, in line with the Supreme Court’s earlier order extending the trial completion deadline.
–IANS
pds/dan