Mumbai: Citing security concerns, a special court rejected a plea by Asadullah Akhtar, a death row prisoner currently lodged in Tihar Jail, to be physically produced for his ongoing trial in the 2012 JM Road (Pune) bomb blasts case. The court ordered that the proceedings continue via video link. The accused sought to be brought to the city for witness examinations and identification proceedings, arguing that his virtual attendance hindered his ability to consult legal counsel and properly defend his case. The accused is a convict in the Hyderabad Twin Blast case.In a plea sent by post, the accused submitted that he has been in jail for the last 13 years and is a death row prisoner, and that he is an undertrial prisoner in various cases. He submitted that he has been produced in court only during the police remand and not thereafter at any time, and as such, he does not get the opportunity to defend himself or any chance to interact with his lawyer and prepare his defence. The accused further submitted that he was not produced even virtually on some dates.Opposing his plea, the prosecution submitted that the plea for the physical production before this court should be rejected due to significant security risks. It was further submitted that, given that the accused has been sentenced to death, transporting him from Delhi to Mumbai presents an extreme security hazard, necessitating the deployment of highly trained Delhi Police commandos and specialised security personnel.“As such, the accused is facing serious charges before this court as well as similar nature of trials in other courts. Moreover, he is already convicted with a capital sentence for the commission of similar offences…. Under such circumstances, the physical production of the accused… before this court would not be essential as he is duly represented by an advocate and his production on video conferencing is maintained by the earlier directions,” the judge said. In a plea sent by post, the accused submitted that he has been in jail for the last 13 years and is a death row prisoner, and that he is an undertrial prisoner in various cases. He submitted that he has been produced in court only during the police remand and not thereafter at any time, and as such, he does not get the opportunity to defend himself or any chance to interact with his lawyer and prepare his defence. The accused further submitted that he was not produced even virtually on some dates.“As such, the accused is facing serious charges before this court as well as similar nature of trials in other courts. Moreover, he is already convicted with a capital sentence for the commission of similar offences…. Under such circumstances, the physical production of the accused… before this court would not be essential as he is duly represented by an advocate and his production on video conferencing is maintained by the earlier directions,” the judge said.
