By TCN News,
Bengaluru: The trial procedures of the 2008 Bengaluru blast case was last day postponed to July 28. Meanwhile, the accused still face the problem of not getting lawyers to argue their case and even a lawyer who had argued for PDP chairman Abdunnasir Maudany has withdrawn from attending the trial procedures in the court which functions in the jail premises.
The case was re-opened after a break on Tuesday, but was again postponed by Judge HL Srinivasa to 28th. Senior lawyers Thilak Raj and Vasanth H Vaidya represented Maudany who is the 31st accused in the case. Lawyers were present for only five others accused namely Sarfaras Navas, Thajudheen, Badrudheen, Jaleel and Sami Bagyavadi.
All the accused, but for Thadiyantavide Naseer and Shafas who are in Kerala, and Sainudheen and Sharafudheen who are in Gujarat in connection with the Ahmedabad blasts, were presented in the court via videoconference. When the accused had protested against not presenting them directly in the court which was functioning inside the premises of the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison itself, the court had reportedly said that they could attend directly the next time. But still they were not presently directly.
The case was postponed to July 19 when it was considered on July 7. The postponement was needed as many accused did not get lawyers and many were in jails in different states in connection with other cases. The accused asked for more time to appoint lawyers and the judge agreed, as only six including Maudany had lawyers present then, and the situation seems the same now also.
The accused reportedly complain that it was difficult to get senior lawyers to argue for them especially since the court is functioning inside the jail premises and because of the distance to reach the place. The Parappana Agrahara Central Jail is around 30 kilometres away from Bengaluru city and it takes more than one and half hours to reach the place. So, attending a case will take a whole day. The lawyers also doubt if attending this case would affect their other cases in Bengaluru courts. Adv P Usman, who had argued for Maudany since his anticipatory bail, has now withdrawn from attending the jail court for trial, reportedly because of these reasons.
The court functions in the third floor of the prison building and even lawyers have to go through all the security measures to enter the court, including handing over their mobile phones with the security persons. Some of the witnesses have filed petitions in the court saying they have not given any testimonies, but even they may not be able for a free and fair testimony as they too are brought to the court by the police and the court is inside a jail, Adv Usman reportedly said. He added that even if considering the concerns of security, the case could be tried in the court functioning opposite the jail which would provide a freer atmosphere.