The special sessions court, hearing the 26/11 attacks case, reserved orders on a bail application moved by an accused, Fahim Ansari, on Saturday, when proceedings resumed after almost a month.
Ansari said he was looking for a lawyer as Shahid Azmi, who represented him, was shot dead at his office in suburban Kurla earlier this month.
Judge M.L. Tahaliyani told Ansari that the grounds he had adduced could not be taken as valid. For, it was legally not possible for him to be out of jail. The accused is involved in another offence registered in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh.
“This ground is useless. You cannot go out [of jail]. The moment I give you bail, the Rampur police will take you into their custody. The court will think seriously about [getting] you a lawyer. The bail application does not stand,” Mr. Tahaliyani said. However, the court reserved orders on the bail plea for Monday.
Saba Qureshi, who assisted Mr. Azmi, expressed her willingness to represent Ansari. However, his family told the media that nothing had been finalised yet.
Filing of affidavits
Meanwhile, Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam moved an application for filing 47 affidavits of witnesses, whose evidence is formal. They include those who had carried bodies to hospital and witnesses of inquest at a panchanama.
Defence lawyer K.P. Pawar, appearing for the lone surviving gunman, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab, objected to the filing of the affidavits at this “belated” stage. As per the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), affidavits should have been filed under Section 296 dealing with formal evidence.
“What is the urgency? This is not the stage to file affidavits of a formal character. The court has already finished recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.PC. If this is allowed, the Cr.PC won’t mean anything.” Mr. Pawar said.
Mr. Tahaliyani said that while the prosecution should have taken care, the court would have to consider the contents of the affidavits first to see if they could be admitted. The order on this was also reserved for Monday.
With dates for arguments likely to be fixed next week, Mr. Nikam and Mr. Pawar told the court that they would require three days each.
After the day’s proceedings concluded, it was learnt that Kasab told the court that he was being “pressured” by two unknown persons. The court told him that anyone who met him in his cell was always authorised by the court.
Mr. Pawar denied his client’s contention.
