New Delhi [India], April 30 : The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant bail to three Indian Mujahideen (IM) Operatives accused in the 2008 Delhi serial blasts case.
Though the High Court denied bail to them, it asked the trial court to expedite the trial as the accused persons are behind bars since 2008.
The Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur dismissed the appeals moved by Mubeen Kadar Shaikh, Saquib Nisar and Mansoor Asgar Peerbhoy. They had challenged the order of trial court denying them bail.
The division bench said, "We are informed that the learned Special Court is conducting proceedings on every Saturday so as to expedite conclusion of trial, which is already at its fag end."
"However, in the peculiar facts of the present case and keeping in view that, the appellant is behind bars since 2008, we direct the concerned Special Court to conclude the trial in the present matter by taking it up at least twice," the bench said in the judgement passed on Monday.
While denying bail to Mansoor Asgar Peerbhoy, the bench said that it has been alleged that the appellant is an active member of the terrorist outfit "Indian Mujahideen" and led the "media cell" group and also that he, in conspiracy with other accused persons, sent e-mails to electronic and print media on September 13, 2008, in respect of serial bomb blasts that occurred in Ahmedabad, Mumbai and Delhi.
The bench rejected the bail of Mubeen and noted that the appellant is admittedly a qualified computer engineer and has been alleged to be an active member of media cell of the Indian Mujahideen.
The bench dismissed the bail plea of Saquib Nisar in view of his role.
The bench said that the interrogation has also revealed that on September 3, 2008, location of his mobile number was Karol Bagh, along with mobile numbers of Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Shakeel and on September 13, 2008, the location of his mobile is Batla House.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations against the appellant and the role attributed to him, does not persuade this Court to release the appellant on bail, the high court said.