Abdul Wahiuddin, an arrested accused in the 11/7 case, has filed an RTI appeal before the Supreme Court registrar, seeking details about the pendency of terror-related cases.
An accused in the Mumbai serial train blast case of 2006 has used the Right to Information (RTI) Act to try and put the stalled trial back on track.
Abdul Wahiuddin, an arrested accused in the case, has filed an RTI appeal before the registrar of the Supreme Court, seeking details about the pendency of terror-related
cases.
According to his plea, he wants to know how long he has to remain behind bars before facing trial in the case since he was arrested in September 2006. According a
counsel in the case, the accused wanted to know when his number would come, and maybe, he could get the trial expedited.
Wahiuddin also wanted to visit the national capital to pursue his RTI application and had filed an application before special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) judge YD Shinde, seeking permission to go to Delhi.
The counsel of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) did not object to his application, but with the rider that he will have to bear the expenses for the trip, and of the policemen who will accompany him. The court, however, rejected the plea.
For Wahiuddin, it has been a long wait since he was arrested in September 2006 by the ATS, for allegedly harbouring Pakistani militants who carried out the attacks on July 11,
2006.
Seven blasts ripped through Mumbai's suburban train network on July 11 within a span of 11 minutes, between 6.24pm and 6.35pm, killing 187 people and leaving more than
800 injured.
The trial in the serial blasts case has come to a virtual standstill after some of the accused approached the Supreme Court against invoking MCOCA against them.
The ATS had filed the first chargesheet on November 30, 2006, and a supplementary one on April 9, 2007, accusing 13 people under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
A MCOCA court framed the charges on August 7, 2007, which were challenged by the accused in the Sessions Court; but the applications were rejected. The accused further appealed in the Bombay High Court, which also rejected them. The Supreme Court has stayed hearings in the case and the appeal is pending with it.
In their application, the accused challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(1) (e) of MCOCA, referring to "promoting of insurgency."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}