Mumbai Court Denies Physical Production Plea of Death Row Prisoner in 2012 Pune Blasts Case
Court Rejects Physical Production Plea of Death Row Prisoner in Pune Blasts Case

Mumbai: A special court has rejected a plea by Asadullah Akhtar, a death row prisoner currently lodged in Tihar Jail, to be physically produced for his ongoing trial in the 2012 JM Road (Pune) bomb blasts case, citing significant security concerns. The court ordered that the proceedings continue via video link.

Accused's Plea for Physical Production

The accused sought to be brought to Mumbai for witness examinations and identification proceedings, arguing that his virtual attendance hindered his ability to consult legal counsel and properly defend his case. Akhtar is also a convict in the Hyderabad Twin Blast case. In a plea sent by post, he submitted that he has been in jail for the last 13 years and is a death row prisoner, and that he is an undertrial prisoner in various cases. He claimed that he has been produced in court only during the police remand and not thereafter at any time, and as such, he does not get the opportunity to defend himself or any chance to interact with his lawyer and prepare his defence. The accused further submitted that he was not produced even virtually on some dates.

Prosecution's Security Concerns

Opposing his plea, the prosecution submitted that the request for physical production before the court should be rejected due to significant security risks. It was further submitted that, given that the accused has been sentenced to death, transporting him from Delhi to Mumbai presents an extreme security hazard, necessitating the deployment of highly trained Delhi Police commandos and specialised security personnel.

Wide Pickt banner — collaborative shopping lists app for Telegram, phone mockup with grocery list

Court's Decision

“As such, the accused is facing serious charges before this court as well as similar nature of trials in other courts. Moreover, he is already convicted with a capital sentence for the commission of similar offences.... Under such circumstances, the physical production of the accused... before this court would not be essential as he is duly represented by an advocate and his production on video conferencing is maintained by the earlier directions,” the judge said.

Pickt after-article banner — collaborative shopping lists app with family illustration