The Supreme Court is set to hear the Maharashtra government`s plea challenging the Bombay High Court verdict that acquitted all the 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train bomb blasts case. This hearing is scheduled for Thursday, reported news agency PTI.
A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria on Tuesday noted the urgent request made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to list the state`s appeal against the High Court`s Monday ruling for Thursday.
“It is a serious matter. The SLP (special leave petition) is ready. Please list it tomorrow. There is urgency… Still there are some important issues to be looked at,” the law officer stated.
According to PTI, the Chief Justice referred to newspaper reports about eight individuals being released from prison following the High Court judgment.
On Monday, a special High Court bench, consisting of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak, acquitted all the 12 accused, asserting that the prosecution had “utterly failed to prove the case” and that it was “hard to believe the accused committed the crime.”
However, of the 12 individuals, five had previously been sentenced to death and seven to life imprisonment by a special court in 2015. One of the death row convicts passed away in 2021, PTI reported.
Seven blasts had ripped through Mumbai local trains on July 11, 2006, at various locations on the western line, resulting in the deaths of more than 180 people.
During the trial, the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused, challenging their convictions and the sentences imposed by the special court in 2015.
The High Court verdict has been a major embarrassment for the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which investigated the case. The agency had claimed that the accused were members of the banned outfit Students` Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and had conspired with Pakistani members of the terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Moreover, in a damning indictment of the prosecution`s case, the High Court declared all confessional statements of the accused as inadmissible, suggesting “copying.” Further eroding the credibility of these confessions, the court stated that the accused had established that torture was inflicted upon them to extort these confessional statements.
(With inputs from PTI)