After 13 years, trial in Ahmedabad serial bomb blast case concludes, judgement reserved

Thirteen years after the serial bomb blasts that killed 56 people in Ahmedabad and left hundreds injured, a special court completed the trial against 78 accused persons and reserved the verdict. Except the two accused, who were granted bail for treatment of schizophrenia and after turning an approver, the rest of the 76 suspects have been languishing in jail since their arrest at various points in time during the pendency of the trial, which is said to be one of the longest criminal trials in recent years.

The special judge Ambalal Patel designated court for trial of bomb blast cases concluded the final hearings on Thursday and reserved the order. The court is likely to give a date for pronouncement of order on September 13. The final (oral) hearing of the trial lasted for nearly nine months, of which defence lawyers argued for six months while the prosecution took three months to finish.

On July 26, 2008 simultaneous blasts had killed 56 persons in Ahmedabad and left over 200 injured. The police registered 20 FIRs in Ahmedabad while 15 other FIRs were registered in Surat, where bombs were recovered from various spots. Both the cases were merged for trial as police investigation claimed that "they were part of same conspiracy" by an outfit, Indian Mujahideen, a breakaway faction of banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).

Among the suspects is Safdar Nagori, former head of SIMI. The investigation carried out by Detection of Crime Branch (DCB), Ahmedabad established that the motive behind the terror strikers was avenging atrocities on Muslims during 2002 post the Godhra riots.

It was due to numerous litigations that the trial was delayed. It was also affected following the 2014 jailbreak attempt by 24 accused who were lodged at Sabarmati central jail. The DCB investigation claimed that a 213-feet long tunnel was dug to escape. An internal report found that at least two dozen complaints had been filed against jail authorities for stripping in pretext of frisking and denying medical facilities among other basic rights.

The delay in the trial also resulted in several other controversies including the changed look of the suspects. The prosecution wanted the accused to be identified in the court by their photographs taken at the time of their arrests. It was argued that over the years many of the suspects' appearances changed due to moustaches and beards. This argument was rejected by the court. After hearing the case from Sabarmati jail premises initially, the trail was conducted through video conference.