THE defence in the Pune German Bakery blast questioned on Wednesday “the veracity of the CCTV footage” shown before the Bombay High Court earlier that allegedly showed Yasin Bhatkal inside German Bakery on the day of the blast.
The HC was earlier shown what happened at Pune’s German Bakery moments before and after the explosion on February 13, 2010, which left 17 people dead and several injured. The videos also showed the movements of a ‘planter’, who the prosecution claimed was Yasin Bhatkal.
The senior defence counsel, Mehmood Pracha, on Tuesday claimed that the CCTV footage of the person standing next to the counter in German bakery with two bags is not the same as the one leaving with one bag.
In the third recording shown in court that shows the German Bakery from inside before the blasts, there were 15-20 customers. And among them, there was a middle-aged lanky man wearing a field cap with a rucksack on the back and a black shoulder bag. According to the recording, at 4.54 pm, he had placed an order at the counter and went to the delivery counter to collect it. At 5:29:30 on the footage, the same man carrying one bag on his shoulder was noticed walking out of the bakery. This was recorded by a CCTV placed right outside the bakery.
According to the prosecution, the man was Yasin Bhatkal, the founder of the outlawed Indian Mujahideen.
The prosecution had tried to show from statements that one of the witnesses who was inside the bakery between 5-5.50 pm — during the time the man alleged Bhatkal was also present there.
“He was standing behind me with two bags,” said the witness, elaborating on the man’s appearance.
“Thereafter, CCTV grabs shows a man leaving with one bag. The CCTV footage was doctored. It has been extracted from cassettes without showing the chain of events which led to the creation of this CD (shown in court),” argued Pracha.
He further said that the trial court had relied on partial information. “The person seen inside the bakery was there before the other person had entered,” he added.
Stating that the person who was standing at the counter was there around 5:40 pm while the other person entered around 5:07 pm, Pracha claimed that “there is falsity of evidence. Timing of the entry of the other person has been deliberately held to prove concoction of records.” He also said that “this needs to be taken seriously.” “The CD (shown) has been made from other CDs which have not been placed on record,” Pracha added.