SIMI encounter in Bhopal: Court documents contest police version

As questions continue to be raised over the encounter between the Madhya Pradesh police and eight suspected Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) members, who had allegedly escaped from the Bhopal Central jail on Monday, court documents relating to at least two of the deceased highlight glaring contradictions in the police version.

According to the Madhya Pradesh police, the two men, identified as Mohammad Aqeel Khilji (s/o Mohammad Yusuf) and Amjad (s/o Ramzan Khan), were arrested under terror charges on June 13, 2011. At the time of the arrest, the police claimed that at 11.45 pm, they had raided Khilji's house in the Gulmohar Park area and busted a meeting attended by alleged SIMI operatives. The police further claimed that Khilji, Amjad and the other suspects were planning terror strikes.

However, court documents accessed by DNA tell a different story. In the form of affidavits, pleas, bail applications, and most importantly—a magisterial court order – all of them dating between June 6 and June 10, these documents clearly show that the accused were in the custody of the police before June 13.

Furthermore, the families of Khilji and Amjad claim that they were arrested on June 6. They claim that they had moved applications in the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court on June 6 complaining that the police had detained their sons.

Documents back up the families' claims. DNA has access to a Court order acknowledging the bail applications by the families of the accused men. According to the order, the matter was heard in the court of CJM DS Chauhan on June 10, three days before the alleged meeting of SIMI operatives took place, as per the police's claims. The CJM further posted the matter to be heard on June 13, while the police claimed that accused were arrested on the intervening nights of June 12 and June 13.

In one of the applications on June 6, Amjad's mother claimed that the police detained Amjad's father Ramzan first, and she had then requested his release in exchange of Amjad. Another affidavit by Amjad's father on June 10, which recorded the signature of Ramzan Khan, showed that he was in police custody at the time. The family's applications cite Section 437 (when bail may be taken in case of a non-bailable offence) suggesting that it was not serious terror charges as claimed by the police.

Defence lawyers representing the accused claimed that most of the undertrials had a good chance of being acquitted. For instance, Javaid Chauhan, who represented Khilji, said that two of the four cases against his client were cleared. Chauhan also claimed that the evidence gathered by the police against the SIMI suspects was weak.

Tahawur Pathan, another advocate representing the accused, said: "All accused were booked under multiple sections of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The main evidence showcased by police was literature supporting SIMI, communalism or extremism."

Pathan added that the main charge was Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony). Some of the accused were already acquitted of this offence.

The Madhya Pradesh police refused to comment.

Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh government, has decided to reward Rs 40 lakh to the cops involved in the encounter.