Friday, Mar 29, 2024 | Last Update : 04:08 AM IST

  Abu Jundal creates scene in court, demands adjournment

Abu Jundal creates scene in court, demands adjournment

AGE CORRESPONDENT
Published : Feb 9, 2016, 3:53 am IST
Updated : Feb 9, 2016, 3:53 am IST

On Monday, before the court could record David Coleman Headley’s statement, Zabiuddin Ansari aka Abu Jundal, who is currently facing charges of being part of the conspiracy in the 26/11 terror attacks

On Monday, before the court could record David Coleman Headley’s statement, Zabiuddin Ansari aka Abu Jundal, who is currently facing charges of being part of the conspiracy in the 26/11 terror attacks case, created a scene in court by seeking an adjournment of 15 days, as he wanted to appoint a new lawyer because he had withdrawn his lawyer and needed time to engage another.

Advocate I.A. Khan, who was present in the court, told Jundal he would file a vakalatnama for him and would meet him in jail later in the day to discuss the appointment of a senior lawyer. Mr Khan filed the vakalatnama after Jundal acquiesced.

However, prior to this, Jundal — who was also produced before the court from Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail via video conferencing — told the court that one of his applications seeking transfer of his case to another court was pending before the Principal Judge and, hence, the judge should not continue with the case. Jundal said that he did not have faith in the court and hence his case should be transferred to another one.

Apart from this, he also told the court that his name is Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari and not Abu Jundal and, hence the alias should be deleted from the court records.

The special public prosecutor, however, strongly objected to his application to adjourn the matter, stating that it was a delaying tactic and the court should go ahead with recording Headley’s evidence. He also told Jundal that his plea was pending with Principal Sessions judge and he should wait until it is decided.

The advocate argued before special judge G.A. Sanap that the charges framed against Jundal were not applicable and his earlier lawyer was not present at the time of framing of charges. “No arguments had taken place during framing of charges,” said advocate Khan. He also pacified Jundal so that court could proceed, after which the former sat down and the judge started recording Headley’s testimony. During Monday’s proceedings, Headley did not mention anything about Jundal’s role in the case.