New Delhi — The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the other co-accused to file a reply to the CBI plea seeking to transfer trial in two separate cases against Yasin Malik.
A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih granted two weeks to the co-accused in the case to file its reply on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) application.
The apex court listed the matter on January 20, 2025. During the hearing, the top court was informed that one of the accused is no more. The apex court also said that all the accused have to be heard if the trial is to be transferred.
The Supreme Court had earlier suggested exploring to set up a makeshift courtroom in jail for conducting trial against terror convict, Yasin Malik in two cases related to kidnapping and murder and remarked that Ajmal Kasab was also given an opportunity for a fair trial.
The observation came when it heard the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) plea against the Jammu court’s order calling for Malik’s physical presence in trial proceedings.
In the last hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the top court that a fully functional court exists in the jail with video conferencing facilities if required, as hearings have taken place there earlier.
SG Mehta had said that the central agency does not wish to take Malik, who is at Tihar Jail in Delhi to Jammu and Kashmir due to security reasons.
CBI had filed an appeal against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu(TADA/POTA) dated September 20 and September 21 issuing a production warrant against him in two different cases.
A Jammu Court had sought Malik’s physical appearance for cross-examination of witnesses in relation to the killing of four IAF personnel and abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of Mufti Muhammad Sayeed in 1989. However, the SC in the last hearing stayed the Jammu’s court order.
Earlier SG Mehta had expressed concern over Yasin Malik’s presence in SC and wrote a letter to Home Secretary stating that Yasin Malik’s presence was a serious security lapse raising apprehension that he could have escaped, forcibly taken away or could have been killed.
The letter mentioned an order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs with regards to Malik under section 268 Criminal Code of Procedure which prevents the jail authorities to bring the said convict out of the jail premises for security reasons.
