The Bombay high court on Thursday admitted the appeals filed by two persons convicted by the special Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) court in the 2002 Mulund blasts case.
The Bombay high court on Thursday admitted the appeals filed by two persons convicted by the special Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) court in the 2002 Mulund blasts case. Both convicts had been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and have sought bail pending hearing of their appeal. The court has posted hearing on their application to May 4.
The division bench of Justice N.H. Patil and Justice A.M. Badar, while admitting appeals filed by Hasib Mulla and Ateef Mulla, asked the state to file a reply on their bail application on the next date of hearing before deferred the matter to May 4.
In the meantime, advocate Sudeep Pasbola and Arif Siddiqui, on behalf of Hasib, and advocate Mubin Solkar, on behalf of Ateef Mulla, argued that both applicants were entitled to be released on bail pending the appeal.
According to Mr Pasbola, Hasib was convicted only for possession of weapons and the court had convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. He further argued that the court had acquitted him of charges of criminal conspiracy of causing blasts and out of 10 years’ imprisonment he had already spent almost 8 years behind bars before he was granted bail and remained on bail till the court pronounced its judgment so he had a very strong case of getting released on bail.
On the other hand, Mr Solkar, on behalf of Ateef, who is also convicted for possession of arms and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment but has spent only around 3 years in jail, argued that the applicant has very good chances of succeeding in his appeal against his conviction because he has been convicted on the evidence of a solitary independent witness “whose evidence is not only tainted and unreliable but also legally inadmissible.”
He also argued that Ateef had already spent 3 years in jail and “it is desirable in the interest of justice to be released on bail, pending appeal.” According to Mr Solkar, the applicant was on bail throughout the trial and never violated terms and conditions imposed on him and hence he should be granted bail.
