The production of Soofiya Maudany before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class 2, Aluva, on Friday, was mired in uncertainty.
The only thing that was certain was that she would be produced before the court on Friday. But, no one including police officials was sure when she would be produced before the court.
A large posse of policemen were posted near the court premises from morning. The police blocked the throughway near the court complex a couple of times by erecting barricades only to remove it later. This continued till afternoon and no police official was willing to confirm the time of production of the accused.
By afternoon, the court premises was packed with lawyers, onlookers and mediapersons. Police officials were seen screening the visitors to the court premises.
Eventually, Soofiya — escorted by women police and commandos — was brought to the courtroom at 2.25 p.m.
Soofiya’s lawyer, B. Raman Pillai contended that the inclusion of the petitioner as the accused was at a belated stage and her arrest and detention were with ulterior motives.
The false inclusion and arrest of the petitioner was a politically motivated act with the deliberate intention of attaining political mileage. There was also no material evidence to link the petitioner to the case, he argued.
He also argued that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused only at the instance and presence of the Karnataka police, which said that Thadiyantavide Naseer, the alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba commander, had revealed Soofiya’s name.
In fact, he was an enemy of Abdul Nasir Maudany, the husband of the petitioner, he said.
‘Bus burning, an act of terror’
Opposing the bail application, the prosecution said that the Kerala High Court had stated that the Kalamassery bus burning case was an act of terrorism. Asserting it, the prosecution also revealed a particular mobile number, which was used by Soofiya to communicate with the other accused.
Soofiya also told the other accused in the case to act as per the instructions of Naseer. There is ample evidence to prove that the she abetted and conspired to wage war against the Tamil Nadu government, the prosecution continued.
As the court rejected the bail application, the counsel for the petitioner prayed that the accused should be send to Ernakulam sub jail instead of Muvattupuzha sub jail. The court remanded her to the Ernakulam sub jail, as the prosecution didn’t oppose the prayer.
Senior People’s Democratic Party leaders including Ponthura Siraj were present inside the courtroom.