2012 Pune Blasts Case: Mumbai Court Denies Bail To Accused; Says Nature Of Offence Serious

Bribery case

A Special Court in Pune has refused bail to Asad Khan, one of the prime accused in the 2012 JM Road serial blasts case.

Khan, 46, a resident of Aurangabad, has been in custody since December 20, 2012, and argued that his prolonged incarceration violated his fundamental rights.

Despite spending more than 13 years in prison, the court held that there was sufficient prima facie material to suggest his active role in the blasts and denied his request for release.

Defence Arguments On Delay

Khan’s counsel highlighted the inordinate delay in the trial, stressing that only 23 out of 300 witnesses had been examined over the years. The lawyer argued that Khan’s continued detention amounts to punishment before conviction and infringes on his constitutional rights to life, personal liberty, and a speedy trial.

The defence maintained that with little likelihood of the trial concluding soon, bail was justified.

Prosecution’s Stand

The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that Khan played a key role in planting explosives and preparing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used in the coordinated blasts on Pune’s JM Road. The blasts in August 2012 had injured several people and were part of what investigators described as a wider conspiracy.

According to the prosecution, granting bail at this stage would compromise both the ongoing trial and public safety.

Court’s Observations

Rejecting the bail plea, the court said the material on record indicates Khan’s direct involvement in the conspiracy. It further noted that the delay in the trial could not be solely attributed to the prosecution.

“The perusal of the record reveals that expeditious trial by recording the evidence of witnesses is intervened by several applications preferred by the accused persons… The delay in the trial cannot be attributed only to the prosecution,” the order stated.

The trial in the JM Road blast case remains pending, with hundreds of witnesses yet to testify. While the defence may approach higher courts challenging the order, the Special Court’s decision underscores its view that the seriousness of the charges outweighs the argument of prolonged detention.