Twitter
Advertisement

German Bakery blast: Did Yasin Bhatkal plant the bomb?

Yasin is a relative of wanted top Indian Mujhaideen (IM) members Iqbal and Riyaz Bhatkal.

Latest News
article-main
File photo of the German Bakery blast site
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The Bombay High Court has observed in its judgement setting aside the death penalty of German Bakery blast accused Himayat Baig that the CCTV footage produced by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) — claiming that the bomb was planted by arrested accused Yasin Bhatkal — is inconclusive.

Yasin is a relative of wanted top Indian Mujhaideen (IM) members Iqbal and Riyaz Bhatkal. Yasin was staying with the Bhatkal brothers in their Mangalore residence and had fled the country following a crackdown by security agencies on IM members. He was also instrumental in indoctrinating youngsters to join IM. He has been arrested by the police and the trial against him is pending.

However, a bench of justice Naresh Patil and justice SB Shukhre has said: "It would be difficult to conclusively hold that the said person seen on the screen was Yasin Bhatkal, though he may be resembling the person named Yasin Bhatkal."

The ATS had played CCTV footage recovered from the bakery before the court. Their claim has been that Baig prepared the bombs and handed it to Bhatkal, who planted it. The court said: "Based on the clippings shown on the screen and the version of one of the investigators, Dinesh Kadam, it would be difficult to conclusively hold that the said person in the screen was Yasin Bhatkal. The circumstance assumes significance as according to the prosecution, the accused was last seen with the planter Yasin Bhatkal and was identified by an auto rickshaw driver."

Special public prosecutor Raja Thackeray said: "How could the court come to a conclusion that Yasin Bhatkal was not seen in the said CCTV footage? A case against him is pending and during that trial he will prove our case that the man seen placing the bag containing the bomb was indeed Bhatkal."

The court in its judgment has also stated that the chain of evidence is not complete. It is not possible to hold in all human probability that the act must have been committed by the accused. There was a vast gap between 'may' and 'must' and the prosecution has failed to bridge this gap, the court added.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement