delhi-court-bails-accused-in-1996-lajpat-nagar-blast-case

A Delhi court has recently granted bail to Mehrajuddin Bhatt, a key accused in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case, who was apprehended after 28 years. The decision came on July 23, 2024, following a protracted legal battle.

 

The tragic explosion occurred on May 21, 1996, in Lajpat Nagar Market, resulting in the death of more than a dozen people and injuring several others. The attack was claimed by the Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF). Bhatt had been declared a proclaimed offender on February 19, 1997, and his arrest on July 9, 2024, marked a significant development in the long-running case.

 

Judge Hardeep Kaur, presiding over the case, approved Bhatt’s bail application, imposing several conditions. Notably, Bhatt is prohibited from leaving the country without the court’s permission.

 

The court's decision was influenced by the lack of incriminating evidence against Bhatt from the testimonies of two co-accused, Faridabad Dar alias Behenji and Latif Ahmed Waza. Both of these individuals were either acquitted or had their charges dropped in previous proceedings.

 

Bhatt’s defence, represented by Advocate Kartik Venu, argued that Bhatt is innocent and posed no flight risk. It was emphasised that he has been a stable employee of the Institute of Management and Public Administration in Natipora since 1989, long before his alleged involvement in the conspiracy.

 

The defence also pointed out that Bhatt's name only appeared in the disclosure statements of the two acquitted co-accused and that all evidence against him is documentary in nature.

 

The case initially began with an FIR registered at the Lajpat Nagar police station and was later transferred to the special cell for further investigation. Among the 17 accused in this case, four were convicted, six were acquitted, and six were declared proclaimed offenders. Additionally, one accused has since passed away.

 

Bhatt’s bail represents a significant moment in a case that has spanned nearly three decades, highlighting the ongoing complexities and challenges of addressing historical criminal cases. The court’s decision reflects the intricate balance between ensuring justice for past crimes and upholding the rights of the accused.