HC acquittal verdict shocking, no witch hunt in probe: Ex-Mumbai top cop A N Roy on 7/11 case
He said the police only chargesheeted the people who had a 'core role' in the blasts, and said there was no 'witch hunt' involved.
Mumbai, Jul 22 (PTI) Former Mumbai police commissioner A N Roy on Tuesday expressed shock over the the Bombay High Court's acquittal of all 12 accused in the 7/11 train blasts case, saying the probe in the case was conducted in a professional manner where evidence was collected 'honestly and truthfully'.
More than 180 people were killed when seven blasts ripped through Mumbai local trains at various locations on the western line. Nineteen years later, the Bombay High Court on Monday acquitted all 12 accused, saying the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case and that it was 'hard to believe the accused committed the crime'.
Talking to PTI, former Mumbai police chief Roy said, 'I am shocked to see the kind of judgment. But it is a judicial verdict, we accept it respectfully.' 'The relevant department, which is ATS, is studying the judgment. They will take legal opinion. I am sure they will file an appeal in the Supreme Court on that,' he said.
The Supreme Court will hear the Maharashtra government's plea against the high court verdict on July 24.
Roy reminded that the trial court had sided with the prosecution while giving the harshest sentences to the accused people and added that the apex court of the country will see merit in the case.
'We presented a very good, strong case to the court through the chargesheet,' Roy said, asserting that it was a professionally conducted, thorough investigation where evidence was collected 'honestly and truthfully'.
Maintaining that he has not read the judgment delivered on Monday, he said the high court seems to be apprehensive on how witnesses could identify the accused after 100 days and questioned if there was any prescribed procedure that explicitly disallows such a practice.
'There are a number of cases on judicial records where the witnesses have identified the accused after 10 years in the court,' Roy said.
Speaking about the delay in the trial, he said the trial went on for several years because the accused kept on moving applications across the legal system and also went up till the Supreme Court for seeking bail or some 'frivolous issues'.
They also made allegations of torture, of getting beaten up and forced to confess which consumed time, Roy said, adding that none of these allegations were accepted in the court.
Reminiscing about the investigation into the case, the former top cop said officers worked overnight to build the case, after which the trial began.
According to the police, members of the proscribed Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and other brainwashed youth conspired to bomb the local trains, called as the lifeline of the financial capital, during the peak hour. Bombs assembled inside pressure cookers were put on first-class compartments of the trains.
Investigators had claimed that the bombers had travelled with the bombs to south Mumbai's Churchgate after assembling them in distant suburbs, and alighted at railway stations before the timers went off.
Roy said, 'We did not do any witch hunt. We only chargesheeted the people who had the core role in the blast.' 'I retired from the service 16 years ago, I was not closely monitoring the court hearings. But I was the police commissioner when the bomb blast happened. I was very closely supervising the investigation and I own up whatever was done in the investigation,' he said on the HC judgement.
'I have accorded the sanction for prosecution under the MCOC Act to all the accused. I stood in the court for 5 days to prove my sanction. Now, after completing the investigation very professionally, very thoroughly, after collecting all the evidence possible to collect, truthfully, honestly presented a very good, strong case to the court through the chargesheet,' he said.
Roy said the court took a long time to pronounce the judgment because it was a very voluminous chargesheet, and added that the trial court judgment alone went into 2,000 pages.
Every single person's evidence was mentioned there in detail. The evidence brought in by the prosecution side, the cross examination by all the 9 to 10 defence lawyers for every witness is all recorded in that 2,000-page judgement of the trial court, he said.
'All the eyewitnesses, all the witnesses who identified the accused, all the recoveries which were made, all other circumstantial evidence, all of that is mentioned in great detail in that 2,000 page judgement. The police officers who were investigated or played any other role during that – they were all examined and cross-examined,' he said.
'I withstood cross examination for 5 days, morning till evening,' the former police commissioner added.
The judgement seems to mention only what the defence lawyers have argued in the high court and saying yes or no to that, Roy said, adding that he found it bizarre.
'We will have to wait for the next verdict. We have got from the trial court's full verdict in our favour. For whatever reason, if the high court has given a contradictory verdict, we accept that as well,' he said.
'We'll go and appeal to the higher court to wait for the final judgement to come. We are very confident that we have a very good case,' he said, adding that they will wait for the final judgement from the Supreme Court. PTI DC NP
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
20 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC extends relief for Rahul Gandhi in Veer Savarkar defamation case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday extended its order staying the summons issued to Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case related to his alleged derogatory remarks about freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. In November 2022, during his Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul Gandhi made defamatory remarks against Savarkar at a rally in Maharashtra's Akola. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih deferred the scheduled hearing for four weeks after a letter seeking adjournment was submitted in the matter. In the meantime, the Justice Datta-led Bench ordered extension of the interim relief originally granted to Rahul Gandhi on April 25. Further, it asked the complainant, advocate Nripendra Pandey, to file his reply within two weeks and granted liberty to Rahul Gandhi to file a rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter. In an earlier hearing, the apex court had cautioned Rahul Gandhi against making 'irresponsible statements', specifically asking him not to speak anything against freedom fighters. The Supreme Court had warned that if the Congress leader made any such comments in the future, it would initiate "suo motu" action against him. 'Let's be clear, any further statement and we will take suo moto! We will not allow you to speak anything about our freedom fighters. They have given us freedom, and this is how we treat them?' said the Justice Datta-led bench as it dealt with Rahul Gandhi's petition to quash a 2022 defamation case filed against him. After senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Rahul Gandhi, gave an oral undertaking that the Congress leader would refrain from making such comments in future, the apex court had passed an interim order staying the order of the lower court summoning him to face trial for the offences under Sections 153-A and 505 of the now-repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC). Before this, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had declined to exercise its inherent powers in favour of Rahul Gandhi, who had sought the quashing of the entire legal proceedings. A single-judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, in its order passed on April 4, said that Rahul Gandhi had the statutory remedy of filing a revision against the order of the trial court. Under the IPC, 1860, Section 153-A addressed the offence of 'promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, caste, etc.," and Section 505 dealt with 'statements conducing to public mischief".
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20 minutes ago
- Business Standard
India must triple its satellites, build space station by 2035: Isro chief
India needs to nearly triple its satellite fleet in orbit over the next three years, Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) Chairman V Narayanan said on Friday while delivering the GP Birla Memorial Lecture on Indian Space Programme – Accomplishments, Challenges and Future Perspectives. During his address, as reported by PTI, Narayanan said the current count of 55 satellites would need to rise sharply to meet national needs. "The requirement is huge. The demand is so much that we have to build satellites. We are working towards that," he said. Narayanan laid out an ambitious vision for India's space future, projecting that the country would be on par with global space powers by 2040 in terms of technology, application capabilities, and infrastructure. A key milestone on this trajectory is the construction of India's first independent space station, with the first module planned for launch in 2028 and the full structure expected to be in orbit by 2035. 12 launch missions in 2025 Isro has lined up 12 launch vehicle missions for 2025, with the most immediate being the highly anticipated launch of the Nasa-Isro Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) satellite. The $1.5-billion Earth observation satellite is scheduled to lift off aboard the GSLV F16 from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre on July 30. NISAR, which will be the world's first dual-frequency radar imaging satellite, will monitor Earth's land and ice surfaces with centimetre-level precision, regardless of weather or daylight. With a 12-meter radar antenna and weighing nearly three tonnes, the satellite is expected to transform global understanding of environmental changes, agriculture, and disaster response. Building India's space economy India's space sector is undergoing a major transformation, both in terms of scale and orientation. From being a primarily service-oriented organisation, Isro is now looking to leverage its research through commercial opportunities, following a favourable policy shift. According to a Ficci-EY report, as earlier reported by Business Standard, India's space economy is projected to grow more than fivefold to $44 billion by 2033 from $8.4 billion in 2022. Communication systems, Earth observation, satellite manufacturing, and navigation services are expected to drive this growth. Moreover, $11 billion in space technology exports are expected by 2033, while $22 billion in investment will be required over the next decade to meet industry goals. Communication services are projected to grow to $14.8 billion by 2033 from $4.19 billion in 2022, while Earth observation is expected to jump from $520 million to $8 billion in the same period. Space private sector, startups get a boost The private sector is also being brought into the fold in a big way. With over 300 space-tech startups now part of the ecosystem, the government has committed ₹3,500-₹4,000 crore to boost satellite development, alongside a ₹1,000 crore VC corpus to catalyse private investment. A total of 52 satellites are planned to be put into orbit over the next five years, as India eyes an 8 per cent share of the global space economy. In all, ₹25,000 crore is expected to flow to the private sector for satellite manufacturing.
Mint
20 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Agenda Stuck in Legal Wrangling Despite Supreme Court Wins
President Donald Trump has cast successes at the US Supreme Court as broad endorsements of his authority to fire agency heads, shrink the government workforce and halt billions of dollars in federal spending. Some lower court judges see it differently. Supreme Court rulings are supposed to be the final word on disagreements over the law. But the growing number of decisions being issued with little explanation on an emergency basis — often referred to as the 'shadow docket' — is creating even more legal wrangling. Now, tensions are building not only between the executive branch and the courts, but also within the judiciary. 'This is not helpful at all for lower court judges,' said Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal district judge in Pennsylvania confirmed during the George W. Bush administration. 'You're reading an abbreviated opinion from the Supreme Court like it's a Rosetta Stone.' The Justice Department has been arguing that the emergency track wins should translate into victories in other lawsuits against Trump's agenda. Federal judges are pushing back, saying the high court isn't giving them enough to work with. This week, the Supreme Court stepped in to settle one such dispute that one of its earlier orders created. A Maryland federal judge had blocked Trump's removal of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, saying it was different in key ways from a firing fight the justices resolved in the president's favor on May 22. In a two-paragraph order on Wednesday, the conservative majority said the district judge got it wrong, and the officials couldn't keep their jobs while they pressed the merits of their lawsuit. The problem, some judges say, is that more cases are reaching the justices on an emergency basis — often in the early stages, without oral arguments and with minimal or no explanation. These orders are frequently just a few paragraphs issued in weeks or even days, in stark contrast with argued cases that unfold over months and result in lengthy opinions offering more robust guidance. In yet another in the growing stack of firing cases, a Washington federal judge last week refused to let Trump oust Democrats from the Federal Trade Commission. US District Judge Loren AliKhan said she wouldn't read the 'tea leaves' in the justices' May 22 decision, a four-paragraph order that let Trump fire top officials at two other agencies. That ruling 'weighs against' the dismissed officials, she said, but doesn't settle questions over a 90-year-old precedent limiting a president's firing power at federal agencies. 'It would be an act of judicial hubris' to base a decision on what the justices might do later, AliKhan wrote in her order reinstating one of the commissioners. She was 'unsure of what to make of' the justices' order, absent more details about what they intended or how they reached their outcome. An appeals court has temporarily paused her ruling. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. A senior White House official who requested anonymity to discuss pending litigation said lower court judges aren't respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court's orders as well as the rulings themselves, and seemed to be taking extraordinary steps to avoid applying them to other cases. The official accused judges of defying the Supreme Court because of policy disagreements. The conflicts are growing as the Trump administration has taken lower court losses to the justices on an emergency basis 21 times so far this year. Unlike cases the court hears on the merits, emergency cases usually don't involve in-person arguments, robust written briefs or lengthy opinions that explain how the majority reached a decision. They don't offer a rubric for lower courts to apply new precedents going forward. For the Supreme Court's 2023-24 term, the average length of a majority opinion was 5,010 words, according to Empirical SCOTUS, a blog that tracks data on the high court. The majority's July 14 emergency order that allowed the administration to go ahead with Education Department layoffs — praised by Trump on social media as 'a Major Victory' — was only 104 words. There are rare exceptions, such as the fight over Trump's birthright citizenship plan, in which the justices heard arguments and wrote a lengthy opinion. Still, the majority's June decision — which Trump called a 'GIANT WIN' on social media — left key issues unresolved for lower courts to sort through. The justices curbed judges' authority to expansively halt government actions but didn't completely rule out nationwide blocks. They didn't touch the core question of whether Trump's executive order is constitutional. In an emergency order, the Supreme Court considers which side is ultimately likely to succeed on the underlying legal questions, but the justices also focus on the harm each side might suffer in the interim. Tension on the Supreme Court over the escalating shadow docket activity predates Trump's latest term in office. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in 2021 that the conservative majority's use of the process resulted in decisions that were becoming 'more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.' Justice Samuel Alito accused critics of portraying the process as something 'sinister' in order to 'intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution.' In remarks to a federal judges' conference on Thursday, Kagan underscored her concerns about the challenges that emergency orders create for lower courts. The justices 'don't usually meet about shadow docket matters and discuss them in the way we do with merits cases,' she said. There is 'a real responsibility that I think we didn't recognize when we first started down this road to explain things better.' The Trump administration's 21 emergency requests in six months exceeds the total number brought by the Biden administration and during the combined presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, according to research by Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and prominent critic of the court's use of the shadow docket. The government has won 16 of the cases at least in part, even if only temporarily. The administration withdrew one application and largely lost four cases, including one filed by Venezuelans who were at risk of being sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison. Trump's wave of policies testing the bounds of presidential power has been met with a deluge of lawsuits, many of which have included requests by challengers for swift intervention by judges. The Justice Department, in turn, has quickly moved to at least temporarily halt the effects of lower court losses while it appeals. But that strategy hasn't always worked. It took just over two weeks for a federal appeals court in Boston to deny the government's emergency request to resume cuts to scientific research grants that a district judge blocked. In a July 18 order, a three-judge panel said it had 'no difficulty distinguishing' the facts of the case from the justices' emergency order in April letting the administration cut teacher-training grants. The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the grant fight. In its latest emergency application the administration claimed that 'district-court defiance' of the justices' April order 'has grown to epidemic proportions' in other funding cases. A Boston federal judge this month rejected the Justice Department's attempt to 'misguidedly argue' that two other Supreme Court orders required her to let Trump fire Department of Health and Human Services workers. In the first order, the justices said Trump could broadly proceed with a push to shrink the federal workforce but didn't rule on the lawfulness of any agency plan. In the other, the majority didn't offer an explanation when it let layoffs continue at the Education Department. The HHS case was likely to 'wind its way up and down the appellate courts,' US District Judge Melissa DuBose wrote, but 'this court declines the defendants' invitation to short circuit that process.' Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the mass firing fight, the San Francisco federal judge handling that case rejected the government's argument that it was effectively over. US District Judge Susan Illston wrote that the justices' 'terse order' was 'inherently preliminary' and left issues unsettled. With agencies carrying out layoffs following the Supreme Court's order, she wrote, 'the issues in this case remain of significant public importance.' The Justice Department raced to a federal appeals court, which this week temporarily paused Illston's latest order while it decides what to do. Should the government lose the latest round, it could bring the case back to the justices. With assistance from Suzanne Monyak and Greg Stohr. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
