The three co-accused in the Lucknow Bombing Conspiracy Case 2021
On April 4, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an alleged Al Qaeda terrorist Mohd Moeed arrested on July 14, 2021, for conspiracy to carry out a pressure cooker bombing in Lucknow on August 15, 2021. The Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court dismissed his bail application earlier.
In July 2021, Uttar Pradesh’s Anti-Terror Squad arrested two terrorists, named Minhaj and Bashiruddin, belonging to the Operation Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind terror group for an alleged conspiracy to carry out a pressure cooker bombing in Lucknow on August 15, 2021. The NIA took over the investigation later.
The NIA submitted that Minhaj Ahmad was radicalised online by two Al Qaeda terrorists based in Jammu and Kashmir. He conspired with the co-accused to recruit members for Al Qaeda affiliate Ansaar Gajwatul Hind (AGH) and commit terror acts.
Furthermore, he recruited Museeruddin into Al Qaeda and involved him in the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in Uttar Pradesh. Then, Museeruddin and Minhaj Ahmad procured arms, ammunition, and explosive materials to carry out blasts with intention of waging war against the Government of India.
It was submitted that Mohd Shakeel, Mohd Mustaqeem and Mohd Moeed aided and abetted Minhaj and Museeruddin in procuring arms and ammunition in furtherance of the conspiracy. A charge sheet was submitted before the NIA Court after the investigation and charges were framed against them u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and u/s 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act.
Mohd Shakeel and Mohd Mustaqeem’s Bail
On March 2, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to two alleged terrorists arrested for conspiracy to carry out a pressure cooker bombing in Lucknow on July 14, 2021. The Court granted bail to Mohd Mustaqeem and Mohd Shakeel concerning “the gravity of the offences for which the trial is framed and looking to the past antecedents of the appellants being unblemished.”
The accused’s counsel, Advocate Fukran Pathan, submitted “that the investigation has already been concluded and the charge sheet submitted before the special court.”
He submitted that once the purpose of the investigation has been served and relevant material has been collected, then “the prolonged incarceration is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, more so when the presumption of guilt is not available to the prosecution with respect to the offences alleged.”
Furthermore, he argued that the charges against the accused are to be proved as the “benefit of Section 43-E of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is not available. Even otherwise, the charges framed are not covered within the scope of the schedule appended to NIA Act.”
He submitted that “there is no past criminal history of the appellants, and they have falsely been roped in on the basis of combined call details which are a part of the material before the trial court.”
However, the NIA’s Special Counsel Shikha Sinha opposed bail and argued that the “trial court has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellants on appreciation of the prima facie evidence against them. However, the factual position as aforesaid could not be dispelled satisfactorily.”
The Court granted the accused bail taking into consideration “the gravity of the offences for which the trial is framed and looking to the past antecedents of the appellants being unblemished coupled with the fact that they are in jail for the last one year and eight months and trial has begun.”
The Court concluded, “Let Mohd. Mustaqeem (appellant of criminal appeal no. 2853 of 2022) and Mohammad Shakeel (appellant of criminal appeal no. 2854 of 2022) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on each of them furnishing a bail bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, however, with a rider that both the appellants shall mark their presence in local police station in the first week of every month and shall cooperate with the trial without seeking any undue adjournments.”
Leave a Comment