Suspected LeT operative Abu Jundal on Tuesday opposed the application filed by the Mumbai crime branch seeking the sessions court — which is conducting the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case trial — to s
Suspected LeT operative Abu Jundal on Tuesday opposed the application filed by the Mumbai crime branch seeking the sessions court — which is conducting the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case trial — to send a request letter to Delhi NIA court directing the registrar of that court to produce the documents and articles related to Pakistani-American terrorist David Headley.
Jundal, in a written reply filed through his lawyer Mehmood Pracha, has contended that if the application of the police were allowed, then it would result in a denial of fair trial to him.
The Mumbai police earlier this month had moved the sessions court seeking documents pertaining to David Coleman Headley,
the Pakistani-American Lashkar-e-Tayyeba terrorist, from Delhi. Since Zabihuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal is also an accused in this case, special judge G.A. Sanap had sought his reply on this application.
“The application under the reply is malafide being made as part of the larger conspiracy to save the real perpetrators, including Headley and his Pakistani associates, of the ghastly crimes of 26/11, thereby making a scapegoat of the innocents like the accused (Jundal),” said the reply filed by Jundal’s lawyer.
The NIA has registered a case against Jundal in Delhi and according to Jundal as per NIA Act that case would have precedence over other cases so this case should be heard first.
“The trial of any case against the accused under the NIA Act will have precedence over the trials of other cases against the accused and such trials shall be kept in abeyance if necessary,” he said his reply.
It also said that in view of this, the trial against accused in NIA case pending before the Delhi court will have precedence over the present trial and “such directing the production of the original documents of NIA case would be unwarranted and unjustified and cannot be sustained in law.”
