Eight years after three blasts shook South Mumbai killing 27 and injuring 127 people, the Bombay High Court recently refused to discharge Kawalnayan Wazirchand Pathreja, 50, a hawala operator from Ghaziabad, who delivered the money to Yasin Bhatkal, of the Indian Mujahideen, and the mastermind of the attack.
On July 13, 2011, three bombs, placed in vehicles near crowded localities, were triggered at Zaveri Bazaar, Opera House and Dadar. The case was transferred to Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad.
During investigations it came to light that ₹10 lakhs was transferred through hawala transactions, and delivered to Pathreja through one Muzzafar Kola from Dubai on the instructions of one Haroon Rashid Abdul Hameed Naik of ‘Indian Mujahideen’.
According to the prosecution, Pathreja delivered the laundered money through his servant to one Shivanand. Shivanand was actually Yasin Bhatkal who had used the fake name to conceal his identity.
A division bench of Justices Indrajit Mahanty and Sarang Kotwal was hearing Pathreja’s appeal challenging the rejection of his discharge by the additional sessions court.
Senior counsel A.P. Mundargi, appearing for Pathreja, said, “There is no sufficient material in the entire charge sheet to frame charges against him... and there is no material to show that Pathreja had any knowledge about the plan of other accused to cause bomb blasts.”
The court order on January 5 said, “We are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr. Mundargi on this count. There is a presumption running against Mr Pathreja which can be rebutted by him during the trial only after the prosecution gets an opportunity to lead evidence in that behalf.
The order read, “At this stage, there is enough material to show that ₹10 lakhs was given by him to the main accused through his servant and it is for Mr Pathreja to establish his innocence by explaining the sources of such an amount or by pleading any other defence which is available to him to rebut this presumption. However, we emphasize that, the stage for such rebuttal can only be during trial and not at the stage of considering the discharge application.”
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench noted that “the trial judge has not committed any error in rejecting the application for discharge”.