Indian Mujahideen (IM) co-founder Yasin Bhatkal today denied before a court his involvement in serial blasts in Delhi in September 2008 that claimed 26 lives and left 135 people injured.
Bhatkal told Additional Sessions Judge Siddharth Sharma the allegation by the Special Cell of Delhi Police that he had hatched a conspiracy for carrying out the blasts, was unsustainable.
He refuted the allegation by the police that he purchased nails and aluminium sheets from a hardware shop at Udupi in Karnataka while his associate Asadullah Akhtar had bought cycle ball bearings from Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh which were used for the blasts.
"The police have yet not produced any forensic evidence that proves that the nails and other materials allegedly purchased from Karnataka and ball bearings from Lucknow were similar to those used for the blasts," his counsel M S Khan told the court.
The two separate charge sheets were filed in connection with the blasts at Karol Bagh, which claimed 21 lives and left 64 injured, and the twin explosions at Greater Kailash here. Nine people were injured in the twin blasts at M-block market in Greater Kailash-I.
The police had said that Bhatkal and Akhtar, along with others, were part of 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.
The charge sheets alleged the offences were punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Information Technology Act.
Bhatkal was arrested by the National Investigation Agency from Indo-Nepal border on the night of August 28, 2013. Later, Delhi Police took his custody in blast case at Greater Kailash-I.
Five cases were lodged in connection with the blasts at Gaffar Market in Karol Bagh, Barakhamba Road in Connaught Place, besides the one in Greater Kailash and 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.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
