A Delhi court recently ordered the framing of charges against banned terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen’s (IM) co-founder Yasin Bhatkal and several of its operatives, including Mohammad Danish Ansari, in a case of conspiring to wage war against India in 2012.
In the additional sessions judge, Shailender Malik stated that there was enough evidence to put the accused on trial.
In an order on March 31, the court stated prime facie of the accused, who were members of the IM, entered into a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
Further, it noted that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, functionaries of the IM undertook large-scale recruitment of new members forth commission of the terrorist activities in various parts of India, with active aid and support from Pakistan-based associates as well as sleeper cells within the country to commit terrorist acts by bomb blasts at prominent places in India, especially Delhi.
The NIA told the court that Indian Mujahideen operatives and its frontal organizations had been receiving regular funds from abroad through hawala channels for their terrorist activities.
It said that the accused used to raise the issue of Babri masjid, Gujarat riots and other alleged atrocities on Muslims to radicalize the minds of Muslim youth in their effort to recruit them for terror activities.
Therefore, the court framed charges against Bhatkal, Ansari, Mohd Aftab Alam, Imran Khan, Syed, Obaid Ur Rehman, Asaudullah Akhtar, Ujjair Ahmad, Mohd Tehsin Akhtar, Haider Ali, and Zia Ur Rehman.
The judge discharged Manzar Imam, Ariz Khan, and Abdul Wahid Siddibappa, stating that the prosecution failed to provide prima facie evidence against them.
Advocates MS Khan and Qausar Khan, who appeared for the accused, opposed the NIA submission, claiming that the evidence produced by the probe agency has already been taken into consideration in an earlier trial against an accused and that the same evidence alone can’t be taken into consideration again in another trial of same accused or even with other co-accused.
The defense counsel said that they will challenge the order before the superior court.
