Supreme Court calls 2008 Bengaluru blast case accused 'a dangerous man'

Supreme Court. File pic

The Supreme Court on Monday called Kerala's People Democratic Party leader Abdul Nazir Maudany, facing trial in the Bengaluru blasts case of 2008, a dangerous man.

Maudany had moved the top court seeking permission to leave for Bengaluru for his hometown in Kerala and wanted to remain there till the trial was over.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian said: "You are a dangerous man." The Chief Justice noted, "Bail was granted by a Bench of which I was a part." However, Justice Ramasubramanian said he might have represented him earlier as a lawyer, and if it is correct then he will not be able to hear the matter.

Maudany had moved the top court has sought relief citing delay of more than six years in completing the trial.

Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, submitted before the bench that Justice Bobde had allowed him to travel to Kerala for a brief period for personal reasons. However, the bail was granted by another bench.

Maudany's counsel sought time to verify the observation made by Justice Ramasubramaniam. After a brief hearing in the matter, the top court scheduled it for further hearing next week.

In an application, Maudany,56, had contended the cases were being dragged due to various reasons - recall of witnesses, transfer of prosecutor and trial judges, and Covid-19 -- and it was necessary to relax the bail conditions. He insisted that currently his presence in the trial was not required.

In July 2014, the top court had granted bail to Maudany in the backdrop of his health issues and directed him not to leave Bengaluru.

Maudany claimed that he was unable to avail Ayurveda treatment for his ill-health and cited the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic as the reason.

His application, filed through advocates Harris Beeran and R.S. Jena contended the Karnataka government had made a submission before the top court in 2014, that the trial will be completed within a period of four months. However, since then, more than six years have elapsed, and the trial has still not been concluded.

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever