1993 Mumbai blasts accused Farooq Takla found guilty in passport forgery case
A magistrate court on Saturday sentenced Mohammed Farooq Yasin Mansoor, one of the accused in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, to five years in jail in a case where he forged a passport using someone else's identity.
Farooq, alias Farooq Takla, 66, has been behind bars since 2018 and the punishment will be considered undergone as he has already spent more than five years in jail as an undertrial.
Farooq is facing trial for the 1993 serial blasts after he was extradited from the UAE. He was declared an absconding accused in 1995 as he had remained untraced after being named in the blasts as a conspirator.
Farooq was alleged to have been residing in the UAE under the assumed identity of Mustaq Mohammed Miya. In 2001, he managed to procure a passport with the fake identity from the Consulate General of India in Dubai. This passport expired in 2002. The CBI alleged that Farooq got another passport issued with the same fake identity from the Consulate in 2011. This passport was valid till 2021. He used this passport to come to India in 2018 as Mustaq and was caught at Delhi airport.
The CBI then booked him under charges including under the Passport Act and sections of cheating and forgery of the Indian Penal Code.
'Accused nowhere denied that on 8 March 2018, he came at Delhi airport from Dubai. When the accused denying about the forged passport, he failed to show that on what passport, he went to Dubai and on what passport he again came in India. Accused failed to show that he has a valid passport of his own name on the relevant date of journey. Accused failed to give the details of his passport and other details i.e. when he made application for passport and for renewal of passport and how he went to Dubai without valid passport or on which passport,' Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate R D Chavan said in the order on Saturday.
During the trial, Special Public Prosecutor Rajkumar Meena, appearing for the CBI, submitted that Farooq had written letters addressed to the prime minister, claiming to be Mustaq. It submitted handwritten specimens to claim that the application for a passport was forged and also recorded the statement of the real Mustaq whose identity was used for the passport. The court relied on forensic evidence as well as witness testimonies including the immigration officer at Delhi airport.
'Evidence on record i.e. oral and documentary evidence shows that the accused Mohammed Farooq Yasin Mansoor @Farooq Takla applied for the passport and renewal of passport by using the name Mustaq Mohammed Miya, which is not his real name. The passport application and passport contains false particulars, false information and forged signature. It shows that the accused by hiding his real identity and submitting false information obtained the passport and also got it renewed,' the court said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
HDFC Bank CEO moves Bombay HC to quash FIR based on Lilavati Trust's complaint over ‘Rs 2 crore bribe'
HDFC Bank Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him on a complaint by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (LKMM Trust), which oversees the Lilavati Hospital in Bandra (West), a prominent healthcare institution in Mumbai. Jagdishan has moved the high court seeking to quash the FIR which has accused him of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore to help a group consisting of one Chetan Mehta and other erstwhile trustees to retain illegal control over the trust. When the matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil, Justice Patil recused himself from hearing the matter after which it was mentioned before a division bench led by Justice Sarang V Kotwal. Justice Kotwal too recused himself from hearing the matter, noting that he had earlier represented one of the trustees. The petitioner will now have to approach the high court administration for assignment of another bench. The HDFC Bank CEO, through senior advocate Amit Desai, claimed that the FIR was baseless and malicious. On May 29, the magistrate court had ordered the Bandra police to register offences punishable under sections 406, 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had directed the police to probe the matter as per section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Bandra police registered the FIR on May 31. The trust, through its authorised representative Prashant Mehta, had filed a complaint contending that there was a loan recovery proceeding going on with a company, of which the father of one of the present trustees was office-bearer and the HDFC Bank, a creditor. The complaint claimed that during the recovery proceedings, the father of the said trustee was harassed physically and mentally, which resulted in his death. After assuming office, Prashant allegedly found a diary showing that from time to time several amounts were transferred on Chetan Mehta's directions to Jagdishan, totalling Rs 2.05 crore. Prashant claimed that the said amount was paid by Chetan Mehta and six others who were erstwhile office bearers of the trust, with a sole view to harass the father of one of the trustees. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Komalsing Rajput, in the May 29 order, noted the contents of the diary showed that amounts were transferred from time to time, that the allegations constituted cognizable offences and the amount involved was 'high'. The magistrate noted that to verify and collect evidence to ascertain the source of amounts and how they were transferred without any reason, a police probe was necessary and hence ordered a probe by the Bandra police. The Bandra police had registered another FIR on May 31 against Chetan Mehta, M/s Phoenix ARC and others for embezzlement of trust funds to the tune of Rs 2.25 crore. Phoenix ARC, along with accused persons Keki Elavia and Venkatu Srinivasan have also approached the high court seeking quashing of the embezzlement FIR against them. The high court will hear the pleas in due course.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
HDFC Bank CEO Jagdishan moves Bombay HC to quash Rs 2.05 cr bribery FIR by Lilavati Trust
HDFC Bank Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him on a complaint by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (LKMM Trust), which oversees the Lilavati Hospital in Bandra (West), a prominent healthcare institution in Mumbai. Jagdishan has moved the high court seeking to quash the FIR which has accused him of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore to help a group consisting of one Chetan Mehta and other erstwhile trustees to retain illegal control over the trust. When the matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil, Justice Patil recused himself from hearing the matter after which it was mentioned before a division bench led by Justice Sarang V Kotwal. Justice Kotwal too recused himself from hearing the matter, noting that he had earlier represented one of the trustees. The petitioner will now have to approach the high court administration for assignment of another bench. The HDFC Bank CEO, through senior advocate Amit Desai, claimed that the FIR was baseless and malicious. Desai argued that the FIR was a 'retaliatory move' due to HDFC Bank's recovery proceedings initiated against Splendour Gems Limited, a company owned by the Mehta family, which had till May 31 defaulted on loans to the tune of Rs 65.22 crore. He said that the complainant is using the 'facade of Lilavati Trust to take action against the petitioner.' Jagdishan sought direction from the court to quash the FIR filed against him along with setting aside the magistrate court's order that initiated the probe. Pending hearing of the plea, he has sought a stay on the inquiry against him and that there should not be no coercive action, including filing of chargesheet, against him, failing which he will 'suffer grave loss and irreparable injury.' On May 29, the magistrate court had ordered the Bandra police to register offences punishable under sections 406, 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had directed the police to probe the matter as per section 175 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Bandra police registered the FIR on May 31. The trust, through its authorised representative Prashant Mehta, had filed a complaint contending that there was a loan recovery proceeding going on with a company, of which the father of one of the present trustees was office-bearer and the HDFC Bank, a creditor. The complaint claimed that during the recovery proceedings, the father of the said trustee was harassed physically and mentally, which resulted in his death. After assuming office, Prashant allegedly found a diary showing that from time to time several amounts were transferred on Chetan Mehta's directions to Jagdishan, totalling Rs 2.05 crore. Prashant claimed that the said amount was paid by Chetan Mehta and six others who were erstwhile office bearers of the trust, with a sole view to harass the father of one of the trustees. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Komalsing Rajput, in the May 29 order, noted the contents of the diary showed that amounts were transferred from time to time, that the allegations constituted cognizable offences and the amount involved was 'high'. The magistrate noted that to verify and collect evidence to ascertain the source of amounts and how they were transferred without any reason, a police probe was necessary and hence ordered a probe by the Bandra police. However, Jagdishan, in his plea, claimed that the magistrate's order was 'self contradictory and flawed'. It stated, 'Despite noting that except for diary entries, no additional evidence was produced, and the complainant Prashant Mehta was unable to furnish further proof. The magistrate still proceeded to direct the investigation based solely on the affidavit.' Jagdishan said the diary and xerox copies of selective cash records was not sufficient and cogent evidence to take cognizance of the offence and the magistrate's actions were 'deplorable'. The Bandra police had registered another FIR on May 31 against Chetan Mehta, M/s Phoenix ARC Private Ltd and others for embezzlement of trust funds to the tune of Rs 2.25 crore. Phoenix ARC, along with accused persons Keki Elavia and Venkatu Srinivasan have also approached the high court seeking quashing of the embezzlement FIR against them. The high court will hear the pleas in due course.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Woman killed in UK: Husband denied interim relief, Delhi HC refuses to stay order naming him proclaimed offender
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to stay an order where the husband of a 24-year-old Delhi woman murdered in East London nine months ago was named as a proclaimed offender. The husband, who is the main accused in the case, has not been nabbed by the Delhi Police yet. 'She (wife) is stated to have died under mysterious circumstances in the UK. This would require consideration…it is a serious matter. If the petitioner (husband) is arrested, his legal remedies can be availed. He can apply for regular bail,' Justice Prathiba M Singh said. 'No notice under Section 41A (notice of appearance before police officer) was served to me…I can be arrested at any time. My properties are at a risk of being attached,' advocate Varun Deswal, who represented the husband, said before the court. 'What is the urgency? You have been declared a proclaimed offender…this matter will require consideration. This is not a case for the vacation bench,' Justice Singh said. 'We have a report from the UK…it is very confidential. It gives details on what happened,' the public prosecutor who represented the state argued. 'Surrender, go to jail and then apply for bail,' he added. The matter will now be heard on July 15. The man accused of murdering his wife was purportedly last spotted withdrawing money from a bank in Gurgaon on March 4. He has been on the run since November last year, when his wife's body was found in the boot of his car in East London. A postmortem report had listed strangulation as the preliminary cause of death. The Delhi Police had earlier issued a Look Out Circular (LOC) against him, after he was suspected to have arrived in the national capital. They had subsequently declared him a proclaimed offender on May 1. According to the latest status report filed by the station house officer of the Palam Village police station in the Delhi High Court, details of the banks from where the accused withdrew money were collected on April 4. This report was submitted before the Delhi High Court had asked the police to file a status report outlining the steps they have taken to arrest the accused, who has been on the run for months. His mobile was recovered on March 22 from an autorickshaw driver as per the report. The parents of the husband were arrested on March 14; the mother is currently out on bail while the father is still behind bars. The police have also announced a Rs 50,000 reward for any information leading to the husband's arrest. Three mobile phones, including that of a relative of the husband (a former Delhi Police official who has been suspended), have also been sent for forensic examination. In December last year, an FIR was lodged in this case based on a complaint filed by the victim's parents. A case under sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was lodged on December 3, 2024, by the Delhi Police. Later, Section 304B IPC (dowry death) was added.
