Shaikh and a few other suspected members of the terror outfit were arrested by Mumbai Police for sending emails to media houses and government agencies before bomb blasts in Delhi, Ahmedabad and Hyderabad in 2008.
They were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA). Shaikh has been already convicted in the Ahmedabad blast case.
Special judge Chakor Baviskar on June 4 rejected Shaikh’s bail plea.
In the detailed order which became available on Tuesday, the court noted that besides arms and ammunition, highly provocative literature was recovered from the accused’s possession.
It “certainly poses a threat to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India” and is also dangerous for the communal harmony in society, the court said.
“The mentality and activity of the accused are both dangerous to society, the nation and humanity itself,” the judge added.
Shaikh had sought bail claiming he was falsely implicated in these cases. He was in jail for a long time, and other co-accused have been granted bail, his application pointed out.
Further, Shaikh, through his legal aid counsel, submitted that when he was an IM member, the organization had not been banned.
“It was banned on June 2, 2010. The offences in this case are much prior to this date. Hence, he cannot be treated as a member of a banned organization (under the UAPA),” the lawyer argued.
The prosecution contended that Shaikh conspired with absconding accused Riyaz Bhatkal and Amir Raza (both reportedly in Pakistan) to commit serious offenses.
Shaikh received training in terrorist camps in Pakistan and facilitated the training of other co-accused, police said.
It also claimed that Shaikh had instructed a co-accused to provide 50 timers, which were used in serial bomb blasts in Ahmedabad and Delhi.
Additionally, two revolvers, a carbine, two magazines and live cartridges were recovered from his possession, the prosecution said.
The court acknowledged that Shaikh had spent a long time in prison since his arrest on September 24, 2008, but noted that the prosecution in Mumbai can not be blamed for that, as he was an under-trial prisoner in the Ahmedabad case.
“Now, as the case in Ahmedabad is over, certainly the prosecution is expected to try this case expeditiously,” the court added.
The judge also rejected the “double jeopardy” argument (a person being prosecuted for more than once for the same offence), stating that crimes committed at Ahmedabad, Delhi and Mumbai were different though the accused were the same set of persons.
Shaikh’s role was more serious than that of the other accused released on bail, the court held, rejecting the plea. PTI AVI KRK
