![Delhi court frames charges against terrorist Yasin Bhatkal,10 others for ‘conspiring to wage war against India’](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Screenshot-2023-04-04-at-10.11.16-PM-1024x593.png)
A court in Delhi on Monday ordered the framing charges against Yasin Bhatkal, co-founder of the banned terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen (IM), and 10 others in a case of conspiring to wage war against India in 2012.
The ruling come as the court om 31 March noted that prime facie, the IM functionaries activities in various parts of India.
Digital data extracted from devices regarding the making of explosives, IEDs clearly shows that Yasin Bhatkal was involved not only in a large conspiracy for committing terrorist activities but also instrumental in preparing IEDs and explosive,” the court said “
Additional session judge Shailender Malik ordered that there is enough evidence against the accused, to put them on a trial. The court framed charges against Bhatkal, Ansari, Mohd Aftab Alam , Imran khan, Syed, Obaid, Ur REHMAN , Mohad tehsin Akhtar, Haider Ali, and zia Ur Rehman.
In the 31 MARCH ruling, the court also pointed towards large-scale recruitment of new members by the banned terrorist organization, with active support from Pakistan based associates. The sleeper cells activated to commit terrorist act like bomb blasts in the country including Delhi.
The national investigation agency submitted in court that India Mujahideen operatives and its frontal organizations are receiving regular funds from abroad through hawala channels. To radicalize the mind of Muslim youth of the country, the banned terrorist organization touched upon sensitive issues like the Gujrat riots, the Babri Masjid issues etc.
The defence counsel of the accused opposed the NIA stands and claimed that the evidence central agency is submitted now has already the earlier phase of trail and the same evidence alone cannot be taken into consideration in another trial against the same or co-accused.
After the ruling, the defence counsel said they will challenge the order before a superior court.
Submitted by ARTI VERMA
0 Comments