Margao blast accused plead for single cell

MARGAO, JULY 27 In an interesting development, the five Sanatan Sadhaks charged by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) in the Margao bomb blast case have prayed to the South Goa Sessions Court that they be housed in a single cell in the judicial lock-up fearing physical assault by anti-social elements

MARGAO, JULY 27 
In an interesting development, the five Sanatan Sadhaks charged by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) in the Margao bomb blast case have prayed to the South Goa Sessions Court that they be housed in a single cell in the judicial lock-up fearing physical assault by anti-social elements.
The five accused – Vinay Talekar, Vinayak Patil, Dhananjay Asthekar, Dilip Mangaonkar and Prashant Asthekar – also prayed to the South Goa Sessions Judge U V Bakre to conduct the trial in the Margao bomb blast case on a day-to-day basis.
In their application field by their Mumbai-based legal counsel, Adv Sandip Punalyekar, the five accused submitted to the court that they have been housed in different barracks since their remand to judicial custody.
The accused maintained that they have apprehensions in their minds about a possible physical assault on them by anti-social elements following adverse publicity the case has been receiving from the media.
Special Public Prosecutor, S B Faria, who is representing the National Investigating Agency (NIA) in the case, later told newsmen that the application is non-maintainable.
Faria said he would oppose the application on grounds that undertrials are governed by the jail norms, adding that the jail superintendent has to decide all such matters relating to under trials.
Faria said the accused also moved an application before the court for a day-to-day trial of the case, admitting that the NIA Act mandates trial on day-to-day basis.
Both the applications will come up for hearing before the court on August 5. Meanwhile, the Sessions Court is likely to frame charges against the accused at the next date of hearing.
The court was expected to frame charges against the accused under the Explosives Substances Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for waging a war against the State. The court, however, could not frame the charge as the draft charge was not prepared by the prosecution.
 

- Advertisement -

Add as preferred source on Google

If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.

Share This Article