An accused in serial train blast case of 2006 has chosen the RTI in a bid to put the stalled trial in the case back on track. Abdul Wahiuddin,an arrested accused in the case,has filed an appeal under RTI before Registrar of the Supreme Court seeking details about the pendency of terror-related cases. According to his plea,he wants to find out how long he had to remain behind bars before facing the trial in the case since he was arrested in September 2006. This way,according a counsel in the case,the accused wanted to know as to when his number would come and may be he could get the trial expedited. Wahiuddin wanted to visit the national capital also to pursue his RTI application and had filed an application before special MCOCA judge Y D Shinde seeking permission to go to Delhi. The Counsel of Anti-terrorist Squad did not object to his application but with a rider that he will have to bear the expenses for the trip and also of the policemen who will be accompanying him. The court,however,rejected the plea. For Wahiuddin,it has been a long wait since he was arrested in September 2006 by the ATS for allegedly harbouring Pakistani militants who carried out the attack on July 11,2006. Seven blasts ripped the sub-urban train system of the cosmopolitan on July 11 within the span of 11 minutes between 6.24 pm to 6.35 pm,killing 187 people and leaving more than 800 injured. The trial in the serial blast case has come to a virtual standstill after some of the accused approached the Supreme Court against invoking MCOCA against them. ATS had filed first chargesheet on November 30,2006 and a supplementary one on April 9 in 2007 accusing 13 persons under various sections of Indian Penal Code. Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act Court framed the charges on August 7,2007 which were challenged by the accused in Sessions Court but the applications were rejected. The accused further appealed in Bombay High Court which also rejected it. The Supreme Court has stayed the hearings in the case and the appeal is pending with it. In their application,the accused had challenged the constitutional validity of section 2(1) (e) of MCOCA,that refers to "promoting of insurgency."
