Three SIMI activists involved in Chennai Central railway station train blasts
The latest report filed by the CBCID showed that a case was registered and re-registered in CBCID.
Chennai: The police has informed the Madras high court that three SIMI activists were involved in the May 1, 2014, Chennai Central railway station twin train blasts, which claimed the life of techie Swathi and injured 14 others.
B.Vijayakumari, superintendent of police, anti-dacoity, in charge of special investigation division, crime branch criminal investigation department, stated this in her additional counter affidavit filed in response to the petition from advocate M.Durai Selvan, which sought to transfer the investigation from CB-CID police to NIA.
She said the accused concerned are SIMI activists viz Aijajudeen, Zakir Hussain and Mehaboob. Among them, Aijajudeen was encountered by Telangana police on April 4, 2015, and Zakir Hussain and Mahaboob were arrested on February 17, 2016, at Rourkela, Odissa state. The said accused have confessed their involvement in this case. Presently both the accused were facing trial in Madhya Pradesh in a murder case. Prisoner on transit warrant was obtained from judicial magistrate, Saidapet for remanding them in the present case. Adequate compensation to the family of the victim deceased Swathi was granted by the state government, she added.
Closing the petition, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R.Mahadevan said the PIL was solely based on the newspaper reports that it seeks to raise the issue of better investigation into the Chennai central railway station train blasts case, which occurred on May 1, 2014. The latest report filed by the CBCID showed that a case was registered and re-registered in CBCID.
There were stated to be three accused and they were SIMI activists. Two of them apprehended while one of them died in the encounter. They were stated to be facing trial in Madhya Pradesh in a murder case and prisoners on transit warrant was obtained for their remand in the present case. Some compensation was stated to have also been paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. No further directions were required, the bench added.