A local court in Delhi has framed charges against Zarar Ahmed Siddibappa alias Yasin Bhatkal, co-founder of Indian Mujahideen, along with 10 members of the banned terrorist organisation, including Mohammed Danish Ansari, for their alleged involvement in criminal conspiracy and waging war against India.
The order was passed on March 31 by Additional Sessions Judge Shailender Malik of Patiala House Courts on the grounds that there was enough evidence to put the accused on trial in a 2012 case.
The court observed that prima facie, the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
It noted that in furtherance with a criminal conspiracy, the IM operatives had undertaken large-scale recruitment of new members for the commission of terrorist activities in various parts of India, with active aid and support from Pakistan-based associates as well as sleeper cells within the country to commit terrorist acts by bomb blasts at prominent places in India, especially Delhi.
As per the submission made by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) before the court, the operatives of IM and its frontal organisations had been receiving regular funds from abroad through hawala channels for their terrorist activities.
NIA said the accused used to raise the issue of Babri masjid, Gujarat riots and other alleged atrocities on Muslims to radicalise the minds of Muslim youth in their effort to recruit them for terror activities.
The court framed charges against Bhatkal, Ansari, Mohammed Aftab Alam, Imran Khan, Syed Maqbool, Obaid Ur Rehman, Asaudullah Akhtar, Ujjair Ahmad, Mohammed Tehsin Akhtar, Haider Ali and Zia Ur Rehman.
The judge discharged Manzar Imam, Ariz Khan and Abdul Wahid Siddibappa, saying the prosecution failed to provide prima facie evidence against them.
Representing the accused, Advocates M.S. Khan and Qausar Khan claimed that the evidence produced by NIA in its submission has already been taken into consideration in an earlier trial against an accused. The same evidence alone cannot be taken into consideration again in another trial of the same accused or even with other co-accused, they contended.
The Defence counsel said they will challenge the order before a superior court.