New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of Mirza Himayat Baig, the lone convict in Pune German Bakery blast which claimed 17 lives in 2010, on a plea of the Maharashtra government against the Bombay High Court verdict that commuted his death penalty to life term.
A bench of Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy issued notice to Baig and sought his reply on the plea of the state government.
The plea had challenged the 17 March, 2016 judgement of the high court which also acquitted Baig from serious charges under various sections of the Unlawful Prevention (Activities) Act and IPC, including sections 302 (murder) read with 120-B (criminal conspiracy).
The high court had convicted 32-year-old Baig for offences under IPC section 474 (possessing a document knowing it to be forged with intent to use it as genuine) and under section 5(b) of the Explosive Substances Act relating to punishment for making or possessing explosives under
Baig, who was alleged to be a member of banned terror outfit Indian Mujahideen, was arrested in September 2010 from Latur in Maharashtra for involvement in the blast at German Bakery, a popular eatery in Pune's Koregaon Park area, which killed 17 persons and injured 58, including some foreigners.
In 2013, the trial court had convicted and awarded him capital punishment.
The plea had claimed that the high court had not relied upon the evidence which showed that Baig had travelled from Latur to Mumbai and stayed at a lodge for the purpose of entering into a conspiracy or "for giving final shape to terrorist act or in furtherance of his terrorist activities".
"Prosecution witness 93 was the autorickshaw driver who saw the respondent (Baig) with the planter of the bomb which proves the last seen theory. In the test identification parade the autorickshaw driver identified the respondent (Baig).
"In spite of that, the high court held that the plea of the prosecution that the respondent was last seen with planter of the bomb does not get credence," it said.
The plea further said, "The high court does not consider that there was a definite connection between the explosive recovered from the possession of the respondent (Baig) and the explosive used in the bomb."