Convict’s plea seeking reinvestigation into 2006 train blasts case is ‘delaying tactic’, ATS tells court

Ehtesham Siddiqui has filed two applications before the special court seeking reinvestigation into the blasts claiming there were discrepancies in the probe. Siddiqui and four others were sentenced to death, seven others were given the punishment of life imprisonment and one person was acquitted by a special court in 2015.

The High Court bench hearing the case last month asked the accused to approach Chief Justice Dipankar Datta seeking assignment of another bench, as the current bench was “overburdened.”

Siddiqui in his plea had also sought action against three witnesses who had deposed in the case claiming that they had given false evidence. Siddiqui had said that a person named Abdul Razzak, who was named as an absconding accused in the train blasts case, had committed suicide in 2012. Citing a report by the Hyderabad police, Siddiqui claimed that while the ATS case claimed that an absconding accused named Razzak had in 2006 brought Pakistani youth to Mumbai for the blasts, Razzak was in a jail in Hyderabad from 2005 to 2007 in connection with another blast.

“The applicant (Siddiqui) has referred to various different events such as the alleged suicide of one Abdul Razzak. How this applicant could fix the identity of Razzak beats comprehension,” the ATS’ reply filed on Friday to Siddiqui’s plea states. The reply filed through special public prosecutor A M Chimalkar along with Aishwarya Sharma, also states that Siddiqui had referred to a probe by the NIA in another case claiming that members of terrorist group, Indian Mujahideen, were behind the train blasts and not those booked by the ATS but it was to ‘mislead’ the court. The ATS has said that to back this claim, the accused in the train blasts case had examined a man named Sadiq Shaikh, an alleged member of Indian Mujahideen. Shaikh was examined as a defence witness but he had not supported the claim of the accused. The ATS said that the accused ‘suffered in their task of misleading’.

“The present application is only a dilatory tactic resorted with a view to further delay the confirmation proceedings. The prayer for further investigation is misconceived and totally untenable,” the ATS reply states. It adds that the court does not possess the authority to direct the investigating agency to further investigate a case after judgment has been pronounced. The ATS also said that the grievances raised by Siddiqui can be placed before the High Court when it hears the appeal.

Siddiqui, who is lodged in Nagpur central jail, was produced before the court via videoconference. Special Judge A M Patil informed Siddiqui that the reply will be emailed to him and his plea will be heard next month. The court also said that notice will be issued to the three witnesses mentioned by Siddiqui through the ATS.