Abu Salem

Mumbai, Aug. 9: The much-awaited verdict in the 1993 Bombay blasts could be postponed by Abu Salem’s petition against a separate trial for him, legal sources said.

Special Tada court judge Pramod Kode had this June ordered the separation of the gangster’s trial from that of the 123 accused on the ground that it would further delay judgment in the 13-year-old case.

Kode, who is expected to start giving the verdict tomorrow, had then ruled that the main trial should be classified as BBC1/93 and the one involving Salem and associate Riyaz Siddiqui as BBC1B/1993.

Although that was done, the trial in Salem’s case has yet to begin. To top it, the don has filed an appeal in Bombay High Court challenging Kode’s order.

After last month’s serial train blasts in Mumbai, criticism had mounted against the delay in giving the verdict in the 1993 blasts case. Kode had then said he would start doing so from August 10.

That would have taken care of Salem’s petition, scheduled to be heard yesterday. But Bombay High Court has deferred the hearing to August 14.

Legal experts said if the high court stayed Kode’s order for a separate trial, Salem would have to be tried alongside the 123 accused. As the high court has yet to give its decision, it was not clear if Kode could start giving his verdict tomorrow.

Since the high court was higher than a designated Tada court, its order would be binding on Kode, the experts said.

“If the high court passes an order on August 14 staying the Tada court order separating trial, and directs the Tada court to immediately complete Salem’s trial, it could eventually delay the delivery of judgement,” said a leading lawyer requesting anonymity.

But defence lawyer Majeed Memon, who represents Tiger Memon’s family in the blasts case, did not agree.

“If Salem had sought a stay on the Tada court dictating the final order and if the high court had granted the stay, it could have affected Thursday’s delivery of judgment. There is no stay granted. Therefore, Judge Kode is not bound by the mere pendency of a petition in another court, and can start dictating his order.”

Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam refused to speculate on what would happen. “Legally speaking, there is no stay granted on the delivery of judgment as of now. So, the honourable judge could start dictating the order,” he said.