After several hearings in the case, Additional Sessions Judge S K Gautam on Monday reserved his order on the discharge application of the accused till February 13, after hearing arguments of the defence and the prosecution. Urging the court to take notice of the closure report filed by the CBI that indicated the innocence of the accused, defence counsel Sufian Siddiqui said the duo was “falsely implicated” in the case. Siddiqui contended that the closure report indicted that the two were illegally detained by the Special Cell and since the High Court had at the time taken cognisance of the closure report, the findings of the report therefore, could not be objected by the Special Cell.

Referring to the objections raised by the prosecution in the case, the CBI as well as the defence claimed that the Special Cell might have “planted evidence at a later stage” to prove their case against the accused. Pointing out that the special cell had not been able to produce a single “public witness” in the case and had also failed to prove the source of the explosives allegedly recovered from the duo, Siddiqui said that these further strengthen his arguments.

Opposing the defence council’s arguments, Public Prosecutor Rajeev Mohan contended that the Special Cell had produced police witnesses who were “equally good as public witnesses.”

Mohan further submitted that the police had sufficient evidence that suggested that the accused were in touch with some people in Pakistan including one Bilal Beg, who worked for a banned Jammu and Kashmir terror outfit.

“There is evidence as shown in the call details report that Ali was in constant touch with Bilal in Pakistan and he came from Kashmir on the fateful day with explosives,” he alleged, adding that even the High Court had not quashed the chargesheet filed by the Special Cell against the duo in 2006.

Meanwhile, the Tihar jail superintendent, who had earlier been asked to file report on Irshad’s allegation of being tortured inside the jail, informed the court that “adequate action had been taken in the matter and an investigation had also been initiated in the regard.” He also assured the court that proper security arrangements have been made to ensure no such incident reoccur in future.