They had further claimed
2020年3月24日 日常The defence lawyers alleged that the entire case made by the prosecution against the applicants is based on imagination. However, special NIA judge V.Observing that there appears to be prima facie evidence available against the accused to conduct the trial, a special NIA court on Monday rejected the bail application filed by four Hindu accused int https://www.bhsbearings.com/ China tilting pad journal bearing Factory Observing that there appears to be prima facie evidence available against the accused to conduct the trial, a special NIA court on Monday rejected the bail application filed by four Hindu accused in the 2006 Malegaon bomb blast case.The applicants had argued that they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no concrete evidence against them. Patil rejected all the four pleas.The judge in his order said that bearing in mind the nature of the crime and the charges levelled against the accused, they do not deserve bail. The applicants had filed for bail after the court had discharged a set of nine Muslim accused, who were also arrested in the same case.
However on April 6, 2011, the NIA was handed over the case after Swami Aseemanand confessed involvement of the right wing terror group of the serial 2006 Malegaon blasts.According to the defence, many objects that were recovered from the applicants are easily available in markets and its recovery does not indicate that they were involved in the blast or were planning to carry out one..Manor Singh, Rajendra Chaudhry, Dhan Singh and Lokesh Sharma had filed the bail applications.But the prosecution held that there was ample evidence against the accused in the case, which is serious in nature and so they should not be granted bail.The blast was first probed by the ATS, which had arrested nine Muslim accused on the basis of alleged links with the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).They had further claimed that many things NIA claimed to have recovered from the accused were easily available in the market and on the basis of this recovery it cannot be said that they were involved in the blast.V. The case was later handed over to the CBI, which endorsed the ATS investigation.The bombs were planted in a bicycle and it exploded immediately after Friday’s prayers near Hamidia mosque near Bada Kabrastan, killing 38 and injuring 100 others.
However on April 6, 2011, the NIA was handed over the case after Swami Aseemanand confessed involvement of the right wing terror group of the serial 2006 Malegaon blasts.According to the defence, many objects that were recovered from the applicants are easily available in markets and its recovery does not indicate that they were involved in the blast or were planning to carry out one..Manor Singh, Rajendra Chaudhry, Dhan Singh and Lokesh Sharma had filed the bail applications.But the prosecution held that there was ample evidence against the accused in the case, which is serious in nature and so they should not be granted bail.The blast was first probed by the ATS, which had arrested nine Muslim accused on the basis of alleged links with the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).They had further claimed that many things NIA claimed to have recovered from the accused were easily available in the market and on the basis of this recovery it cannot be said that they were involved in the blast.V. The case was later handed over to the CBI, which endorsed the ATS investigation.The bombs were planted in a bicycle and it exploded immediately after Friday’s prayers near Hamidia mosque near Bada Kabrastan, killing 38 and injuring 100 others.
コメント