India court pauses acquittal of 12 men in Mumbai train bombings case
The Bombay High Court had freed the men on Monday, overturning a 2015 special court verdict which gave death penalty to five of the accused and life imprisonment to the remaining seven.
The high court said the prosecution had "utterly failed" to establish that the men had committed the crimes they had been convicted of.
On Tuesday, the Maharashtra government appealed against their acquittal. The train bombings had killed 187 and injured more than 800 people.
While pausing the high court order on Thursday, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court said the men were not required to go back to prison.
The judges said that some of the observations made by the high court in its order could impact pending cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Live Law website reported.The 12 men had been convicted in 2015 by a MCOCA court - a special court set up to try cases that fall under the particular law.On 11 July 2006, seven blasts ripped through busy commuter trains during the evening rush hour in one of India's deadliest attacks.The bombs, packed into seven pressure cookers and put in bags, detonated within six minutes of each other.The blasts took place in the areas of Matunga, Khar, Mahim, Jogeshwari, Borivali and Mira Road, with most on moving trains and two at stations.Indian security agencies blamed the attack on militants backed by Pakistan, an allegation Islamabad denied.The accused, who were arrested shortly after the blasts, have been in jail since then. One of them, Kamal Ansari, who had been sentenced to death, died of Covid in 2021.The MCOCA court convicted the men of murder, conspiracy and waging war against the country. The prosecution appealed to confirm the death sentences, while the defence sought acquittal.In July 2024, the Bombay High Court formed the two-judge bench to expedite the hearings.Reports say that over the next six months, the court conducted more than 75 sittings and examined 92 prosecution witnesses and over 50 defence witnesses.In the 667-page order on Monday, the court noted that the defence had questioned the credibility of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, as well as the confessional statements made by the accused.It also acknowledged the defence's contention that the recovered evidence was not maintained in a "sealed condition throughout". — BBC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
3 days ago
- Arab News
Court frees men accused in 2006 train bombings India blamed on Pakistan-based group
MUMBAI: Nearly two decades lost, a family fractured and a city still without closure — the scars of the 2006 Mumbai train bombings remain, even as the men once blamed for the deadly attacks walk free. After 19 years behind bars, Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari can finally hold his daughter in his arms. Ansari, now 48, was one of 12 men convicted in 2015 for murder, conspiracy and waging war against India over the 2006 train blasts. The evening rush-hour attacks, carried out with pressure-cooker bombs hidden in bags beneath newspapers and umbrellas, killed 187 people and wounded hundreds more. Five of the accused were sentenced to death, while the other seven — including Ansari — were given life imprisonment. At the time of the blasts, Ansari was just 29, running a modest mobile and computer repair shop. He was arrested soon after the explosions, reportedly accused of assembling the bombs and sheltering two Pakistani nationals. But this week, a two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court overturned the convictions, ruling that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' to prove the men were responsible. The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court to halt their release, but it declined to intervene. 'It feels amazing to be free,' Ansari told AFP. 'We are innocent.' Freedom, however, feels bittersweet for Ansari. 'My whole youth is gone. My family had to face financial troubles,' he said. His wife was pregnant when Ansari was arrested, leaving him to miss his daughter's entire childhood. In her early years, she wouldn't even come near him. 'As a dad that felt terrible, that I could not hold my own daughter,' he said. 'I used to feel very helpless and think why do we have to go through all this when I am innocent.' The 2006 attacks were initially blamed on the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, although a little-known outfit, Lashkar-e-Qahhar, later claimed responsibility. Pakistan denied the allegations. For survivor Chirag Chauhan, who was paralyzed from the waist down in one of the blasts, the acquittal of the men felt like being dragged 'back to square one.' 'We don't know what to do and where to start from. The entire system is hopeless,' he told AFP. In 2006, Chauhan, now 40, was returning home from chartered accountancy training when the train he boarded was hit by an explosion. Prosecutors said the explosives were deliberately placed in first-class coaches to target the city's wealthy Gujarati community. They also said the bombings were intended as revenge for riots in the western state of Gujarat in 2002, which left around 2,000 people dead, most of them Muslims. A spinal cord injury left Chauhan requiring the use of a wheelchair. 'After 19 years if the accused are let free, who carried out the blasts then?' he asked. But he also said there should be a 'fair investigation,' noting that the now freed men could have been framed. 'All are equally to be blamed, the judiciary, the investigative agencies, everyone,' he said. For Ansari, his years behind bars demand more than an acquittal. 'The agencies should be ashamed of what they did and should definitely apologize to us,' he said. While his old mobile and computer repair shop is no longer an employment option, given the advances in technology since he was imprisoned, Ansari is aiming to rebuild his life. He plans to finish the undergraduate law degree which he enrolled in while in prison. 'I hope to put it to good use,' he said.
Saudi Gazette
3 days ago
- Saudi Gazette
India court pauses acquittal of 12 men in Mumbai train bombings case
DELHI — India's Supreme Court has stayed a recent court verdict which acquitted 12 men who had been convicted for the 2006 Mumbai train bombings. The Bombay High Court had freed the men on Monday, overturning a 2015 special court verdict which gave death penalty to five of the accused and life imprisonment to the remaining seven. The high court said the prosecution had "utterly failed" to establish that the men had committed the crimes they had been convicted of. On Tuesday, the Maharashtra government appealed against their acquittal. The train bombings had killed 187 and injured more than 800 people. While pausing the high court order on Thursday, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court said the men were not required to go back to prison. The judges said that some of the observations made by the high court in its order could impact pending cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Live Law website 12 men had been convicted in 2015 by a MCOCA court - a special court set up to try cases that fall under the particular 11 July 2006, seven blasts ripped through busy commuter trains during the evening rush hour in one of India's deadliest bombs, packed into seven pressure cookers and put in bags, detonated within six minutes of each blasts took place in the areas of Matunga, Khar, Mahim, Jogeshwari, Borivali and Mira Road, with most on moving trains and two at security agencies blamed the attack on militants backed by Pakistan, an allegation Islamabad accused, who were arrested shortly after the blasts, have been in jail since then. One of them, Kamal Ansari, who had been sentenced to death, died of Covid in MCOCA court convicted the men of murder, conspiracy and waging war against the country. The prosecution appealed to confirm the death sentences, while the defence sought July 2024, the Bombay High Court formed the two-judge bench to expedite the say that over the next six months, the court conducted more than 75 sittings and examined 92 prosecution witnesses and over 50 defence the 667-page order on Monday, the court noted that the defence had questioned the credibility of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, as well as the confessional statements made by the also acknowledged the defence's contention that the recovered evidence was not maintained in a "sealed condition throughout". — BBC
Arab News
4 days ago
- Arab News
US appeals court finds Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional, upholds block
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower-court decision that blocked its enforcement nationwide. The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump's plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. 'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' the majority wrote. The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from US District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions. But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices. The case was filed by a group of states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the law in half of the country. 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,' Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue. 'We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions,' he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to US jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase 'subject to United States jurisdiction' in the amendment means that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil. Trump's order asserts that a child born in the US is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the US.
