Delhi court frames conspiracy, terror charges against Yasin Bhatkal in 2008 serial blasts case
A Delhi court on Tuesday framed conspiracy and other terror charges against Indian Mujahideen co-founder Yasin Bhatkal and his associate in a case related to the September 2008 serial blasts in Delhi that claimed 26 lives and left 135 people injured.
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday framed conspiracy and other terror charges against Indian Mujahideen co-founder Yasin Bhatkal and his associate in a case related to the September 2008 serial blasts in Delhi that claimed 26 lives and left 135 people injured.
Additional Sessions Judge Siddharth Sharma put Bhatkal and his associate Asadullah Akhtar on trial for various offences punishable under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Explosive Substances Act.
The present case relates to the twin explosions at Greater Kailash-I in South Delhi where nine people were injured in the twin blasts at the M-block market.
The charges framed by the court include criminal conspiracy (120B) punishable under Indian Penal Code, various sections UAPA, including conspiracy for committing terror act (section 18) and being member of a terror organisation.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on 28 February.
The accused persons, represented by advocate M S Khan, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The police had said that Bhatkal and Akhtar, along with others, were part of the conspiracy to carry out the blasts at several places in Delhi on September 13, 2008. They had claimed that the accused had waged war against India by carrying out the terror attacks.
Bhatkal was arrested by the National Investigation Agency from India-Nepal border on the night of 28 August, 2013. Later, Delhi Police took his custody in blast case at Greater Kailash-I.
Five cases were lodged in connection with the blasts at Ghaffar Market in Karol Bagh, Barakhamba Road near Connaught Place, besides the one at Greater Kailash and the recovery of a bomb near India Gate. All the five cases were clubbed by the trial court for the purpose of framing of charges and trial on the ground they arose from the series of the same transaction.