December 9, 2022

The December 2005 capturing incident resulted within the demise of 1 individual.


A Tripura native was final week acquitted of terror costs for his alleged position in a capturing incident on the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bengaluru. The 36-year-old Mohammed Habeeb had been in jail for 5 years until he was cleared by a particular NIA courtroom on June 14.

Mr Habeeb was arrested in 2017 by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in reference to the December 2005 capturing incident which led to the demise of 1 individual and accidents to some others. The Karnataka Police had mentioned the assault was carried out by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba and later arrested Mr Habeeb, figuring out him as “conspirator of the terror attack”.

After his launch from the Central Prison in Bengaluru, Mr Habeeb mentioned, “My father died hearing the allegations against me. I was kept in jail without any trial for four years and now discharged as they couldn’t provide any evidence against me. I had never come to Bengaluru before.”

Mr Habeeb’s advocate Tahir Amir, who did not cost any charges from him, mentioned that “he is not alone who was kept behind the bars without trial for many years.” “Still 27 persons accused in the 2013 blast case outside the State BJP Headquarters in Bengaluru are languishing in jail without any trial,” he mentioned.

A resident of Jogendra Nagar in Tripura’s Agartala, Mr Habeeb, the police claimed, had taken the primary accused within the 2005 capturing case to Bangladesh illegally. They mentioned he was additionally concerned in terror actions in Bengaluru.

Mr Habeeb, a storage mechanic by occupation, was arrested on the idea of the confessional assertion by one Salauddeen, who was arrested by Lucknow Police in 2008. “On the basis of his confessional statement, Mr Habeeb was arrested, that too after almost nine years, in December 2017,” mentioned advocate Tahir Amir.

Mr Habeeb was charged beneath the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Explosives Act, and numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code.

However, a particular National Investigation Agency courtroom disagreed with the prosecution.

The courtroom agreed with Mr Habeeb’s plea that the “police have not stated anything in the chargesheet about the accused and also not collected any evidence which show that the accused has any distinct knowledge of the incident or crime involved in this case at any point of time”.

(*4*) the decide mentioned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *