Mumbai: The Bombay High Court questioned the anti -terrorism squad (ATS) to remove “integrity” and call data records (ATS) in its investigation in 11/7 train blasts, “an adverse knowledge against the reluctance of prosecution and their destruction increases to bring the prosecution on record.,HC said that the case of the prosecution was that conspiracy meetings were held at the residence of a planner in Bandra, in which four other accused participated. In May, an prosecution witness met the planter and others near Shams Masjid in Meera Road, where the witness was instructed by the planner to call another accused there. In addition, the confession of the two accused said that one handed over his mobile phone to the other near Lucky Hotel, Bandra, at 4:15 pm, in the judgment.Seeing the meeting of an alleged explosion conspiracy, in an eyewitness claim, “The prosecution may have easily established the location and movement of the accused related to the relatives and timely accused through the CDR. Instead, the CDR was destroyed. The Act is seriously injured on the integrity of the investigation conducted by the investigating agency, which was properly conducted a serious violation for a serious violation.”HC said the CDR was of significant importance, especially because the first arrest in the 11/7 case was allegedly made on the basis of a mobile number related to accused Kamal Ansari (who died in 2021 after sentence in Nagpur jail), one of which was sent to a religious SMS, which raises doubts in the mind of the ATS. HC said that the prosecution has not conducted any investigation to confirm the witness of the accused near the mosque or at the accused’s house. “The prosecution produced the CDR of the witness or the accused,” HC said. Therefore, the witness’s statement is immersed in suspicion. In addition, while his statement was recorded by an ACP at Chandan Chowki, the certified logbook suggests that the ACP “did not even go that day”. The prosecution allegedly stated, “According to the training given to al-Qaeda manual and accused, they should not have used their mobile phones for operational purposes.”“In the absence of direct evidence of the conspiracy, a series of events must be completed, from which the crime of the accused can be concluded,” HC said, “HC said. The court said that with eight incredible eyewitnesses, the chain could not be completed, and the witness had no help in establishing a conspiracy claim.The accused initially demanded CDR. Until HC directed the prosecution to provide CDR, the mandatory time for its protection was missed, and the telecom operator could not provide full CDR to the accused. Defense lawyer Yug Chaudhary said that the right to a fair lawsuit was severely compromised, and “the most egoistic and far -reaching violation is the destruction of CDR.” The record does not suggest who has directed the CDR’s deletion, and there is no station diary entry or any record about the removal of data.“The prosecution also opposed the defense petition under the RTI Act for CDR copies.Destruction of CDRS 11/7 causes serious doubts on the integrity of investigation: HCSwati DeshpandeMumbai: The Bombay High Court questioned the anti -terrorism squad (ATS) to remove “integrity” and call data records (ATS) in its investigation in 11/7 train blasts, “increased the prosecution’s reluctance and an adverse allocation against prosecution to bring the prosecution on record.”HC said that the case of the prosecution was that conspiracy meetings were held at the residence of a planner in Bandra, in which four other accused participated. In May, an prosecution witness met the planter and others near Shams Masjid in Meera Road, where the witness was instructed by the planner to call another accused there. In addition, the confession of the two accused said that one handed over his mobile phone to the other near Lucky Hotel, Bandra, at 4:15 pm, in the judgment.Seeing the meeting of an alleged explosion conspiracy, in an eyewitness claim, “The prosecution may have easily established the location and movement of the accused related to the relatives and timely accused through the CDR. Instead, the CDR was destroyed. The Act is seriously injured on the integrity of the investigation conducted by the investigating agency, which was properly conducted a serious violation for a serious violation.”HC said the CDR was of significant importance, especially because the first arrest in the 11/7 case was allegedly made on the basis of a mobile number related to accused Kamal Ansari (who died in 2021 after sentence in Nagpur jail), one of which was sent to a religious SMS, which raises doubts in the mind of the ATS. HC said that the prosecution has not conducted any investigation to confirm the witness of the accused near the mosque or at the accused’s house. “The prosecution produced the CDR of the witness or the accused,” HC said. Therefore, the witness’s statement is immersed in suspicion. In addition, while his statement was recorded by an ACP at Chandan Chowki, the certified logbook suggests that the ACP “did not even go that day”. The prosecution allegedly stated, “According to the training given to al-Qaeda manual and accused, they should not have used their mobile phones for operational purposes.”“In the absence of direct evidence of the conspiracy, a series of events must be completed, from which the crime of the accused can be concluded,” HC said, “HC said. The court said that with eight incredible eyewitnesses, the chain could not be completed, and the witness had no help in establishing a conspiracy claim.The accused initially demanded CDR. Until HC directed the prosecution to provide CDR, the mandatory time for its protection was missed, and the telecom operator could not provide full CDR to the accused. Defense lawyer Yug Chaudhary said that the right to a fair lawsuit was severely compromised, and “the most egoistic and far -reaching violation is the destruction of CDR.” The record does not suggest who has directed the CDR’s deletion, and there is no station diary entry or any record about the removal of data.“The prosecution also opposed the defense petition under the RTI Act for CDR copies.
