Mumbai: The Bombay high court questioned the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) over the “integrity” and deletion of call data records (CDRs) in its probe into the 11/7 train blasts, adding “the reluctance of the prosecution to bring CDRs on record and their destruction raises an adverse inference against the prosecution.“The HC said the prosecution’s case was that conspiracy meetings were held at the residence of a planter in Bandra, attended by four other accused. In May, a prosecution witness met the planter and others near Shams Masjid, in Mira Road, where the witness was instructed by the planter to call another accused there. Besides, confessions of two accused said one handed over his mobile phone to the other near Lucky Hotel, Bandra, at 4:15 pm, the judgment said.In its claim of one eyewitness seeing an alleged blast conspiracy meeting, “the prosecution could have easily established the location and movement of the accused at the relevant places and times through the CDRs. Instead, the CDR was destroyed. This act raises serious doubts over the integrity of the investigation conducted by the investigating agency and amounts to a grave violation of the right to a fair trial,” the HC special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak held.The HC said CDR was of critical importance, particularly because the first arrest in the 11/7 case was made based on a mobile number allegedly belonging to accused Kamal Ansari (who died in 2021 after conviction in Nagpur prison) from which a religious SMS was sent, arousing suspicion in the minds of ATS. The HC said the prosecution appeared to have done no probe to corroborate the witness’s claim of having met near the masjid or at the accused’s house. “The prosecution could have produced the CDR of either the witness or the accused to establish their location,” the HC held. Therefore, the witness’ statement is shrouded in doubt. Besides, while his statement was said to be recorded by an ACP at Chandan Chowki, the certified logbook shows the ACP “did not even go” there that day. The prosecution said allegedly “as per the Al-Qaeda Manual and training given to the accused, they were not supposed to use their mobile phones for operational purposes.”“In the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, a chain of events has to be completed from which a conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn,” the HC said. The court said that with the eight unreliable eyewitnesses, the chain could not be completed, and the witness was of no help in establishing the conspiracy claim.The accused initially demanded the CDRs. By the time HC directed the prosecution to provide CDRs, the mandatory time for its preservation had lapsed, and the telecom operator could not provide complete CDRs to the accused. Defence counsel Yug Chaudhri said right to a fair trial was severely compromised, and “the most egregious and far-reaching violation is the destruction of the CDR.” The record does not disclose who directed deletion of CDRs, and there is “no station diary entry or any record about deleting the data.” The prosecution opposed the defence plea even under RTI Act for CDR copies.Destruction of CDRs raises serious doubts over integrity of 11/7 probe: HCSwati DeshpandeMumbai: The Bombay high court questioned the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) over the “integrity” and deletion of call data records (CDRs) in its probe into the 11/7 train blasts, adding “the reluctance of the prosecution to bring CDRs on record and their destruction raises an adverse inference against the prosecution.”The HC said the prosecution’s case was that conspiracy meetings were held at the residence of a planter in Bandra, attended by four other accused. In May, a prosecution witness met the planter and others near Shams Masjid, in Mira Road, where the witness was instructed by the planter to call another accused there. Besides, confessions of two accused said one handed over his mobile phone to the other near Lucky Hotel, Bandra, at 4:15 pm, the judgment said.In its claim of one eyewitness seeing an alleged blast conspiracy meeting, “the prosecution could have easily established the location and movement of the accused at the relevant places and times through the CDRs. Instead, the CDR was destroyed. This act raises serious doubts over the integrity of the investigation conducted by the investigating agency and amounts to a grave violation of the right to a fair trial,” the HC special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak held.The HC said CDR was of critical importance, particularly because the first arrest in the 11/7 case was made based on a mobile number allegedly belonging to accused Kamal Ansari (who died in 2021 after conviction in Nagpur prison) from which a religious SMS was sent, arousing suspicion in the minds of ATS. The HC said the prosecution appeared to have done no probe to corroborate the witness’s claim of having met near the masjid or at the accused’s house. “The prosecution could have produced the CDR of either the witness or the accused to establish their location,” the HC held. Therefore, the witness’ statement is shrouded in doubt. Besides, while his statement was said to be recorded by an ACP at Chandan Chowki, the certified logbook shows the ACP “did not even go” there that day. The prosecution said allegedly “as per the Al-Qaeda Manual and training given to the accused, they were not supposed to use their mobile phones for operational purposes.”“In the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, a chain of events has to be completed from which a conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn,” the HC said. The court said that with the eight unreliable eyewitnesses, the chain could not be completed, and the witness was of no help in establishing the conspiracy claim.The accused initially demanded the CDRs. By the time HC directed the prosecution to provide CDRs, the mandatory time for its preservation had lapsed, and the telecom operator could not provide complete CDRs to the accused. Defence counsel Yug Chaudhri said right to a fair trial was severely compromised, and “the most egregious and far-reaching violation is the destruction of the CDR.” The record does not disclose who directed deletion of CDRs, and there is “no station diary entry or any record about deleting the data.” The prosecution opposed the defence plea even under RTI Act for CDR copies.