Mother keen on freed terror suspect's education

Speaking to The Hindu from her home in Ullal, Maimoona, aged about 41, says that she has already spoken to the authorities at her son's old college. “They have told me that they will get back to me. It has been two years now. He can't just sit around at home,” she said.

Following his arrest in 2008, cases were filed against the father and son in Mangalore and Mumbai under sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 (MCOCA).

Javed Ali was granted bail by the Karnataka High Court last April and later by the Special Court under the MCOCA in an order passed on May 6, 2011. The release order was issued last week after the surety was deposited with the courts, and Javed Ali returned to Mangalore on Thursday.

According to the bail order, father and son were alleged to have been active members of the Indian Mujahiddeen, and provided shelter to some of the accused in other terror-related offences. In the bail order, Additional Special Judge R.G. Avachat said even though under Section 18 of the MCOCA allowed confessions made to police officers of certain ranks to be admitted in court as evidence, he found the confession in this case to be “a weak piece of evidence”.

He cited a Supreme Court judgment which said that courts be “cautious” in accepting confessions from the alleged accused due to the “rampant” practice among the police to elicit confessions by using third degree methods.

The counsel for the bail applicants and the state based their arguments on the confessional statements of co-accused Ahmed Abubakkar Bawa Mohd. Naushad and Akbar Choudhary. Referring to the statement of Akbar Choudhary the judge noted: “The aforesaid matter in no way indicate the applicants to have ever participated in Jihadi talk or did any overt act amounting to an offence. “The last para on page 8 would simply indicate that co-accused Riyaz, Wasim and Iqbal were present at the house of the applicant No.1 Mohd. Ali. His son Javed who was around 19 years of age was bound to be present at his own residence. His presence at his own house could not constitute any offence.”