2009 arms case accused says he doesn't know Abdul Samad

June 17, 2010

Mumbai, June 17: Sulieman Patel, an accused out on bail in the 2009 illegal arms seizure case, claims he does not know Abdul Samad, who was recently granted bail by a court which observed there was no evidence against him in the case.

Abdul Samad, alleged to be involved in the Pune Germany Bakery blast case, was arrested on May 25 by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in connection with the arms seizure case.

The ATS had claimed that Abdul Samad had supplied arms to three persons - Haji Imran, Abdul Sheikh and Sulieman Patel, who were arrested in August last year.

However, Sulieman, who is currently out on bail, claims he does not know Abdul Samad.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

Modi govt asks HC to direct Karnataka govt to vacate madrasa in Srirangapatna Jama Masjid

News Network

November 14,2024

Bengaluru: The Prime Minister Narendra Modi led union government has requested the Karnataka High Court to direct the Mandya district administration and the state government to clear a madrasa operating within the premises of the historic Jama Masjid in Srirangapatna.

The Waqf Board, opposing this move, has claimed the mosque as its property and defended the right to conduct madrasa activities there.

The matter was brought before a division bench headed by Chief Justice N V Anjaria following a public interest litigation filed by a person named Abhishek Gowda from Kabbalu village in Kanakapura taluk. The petition alleged “unauthorised madrasa activities” within the mosque.

Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General of India for High Court of Karnataka, K Arvind Kamath argued that the Jama Masjid was designated as a protected monument in 1951, yet unauthorised madrasa operations continue there.

He noted that concerns over potential law and order issues have so far prevented any intervention. Kamath urged the court to direct the Mandya district administration to take action and vacate the madrasa from the mosque.

In defence, lawyers for the state government and the Waqf Board contested this request, stating that the Waqf Board had been recognised as the owner of the property since 1963 and, thus, conducting madrasa activities there is lawful.

After hearing both sides, the bench adjourned the case for further arguments, scheduling the next hearing for November 20.

Comments