MUMBAI: Bombay high court questioned ATS over the “integrity” and deletion of call data records (CDRs) in its probe into the 11/7 train blasts, adding “reluctance of the prosecution to bring CDRs on record and their destruction raises an adverse inference against the prosecution”.HC said the prosecution’s case was that conspiracy meetings were held at the residence of a planter in Bandra, attended by four other accused. In May, a prosecution witness met the planter and others near Shams Masjid, in Mira Road, where the witness was instructed by the planter to call another accused there. Besides, confessions of two accused said one handed over his mobile phone to the other near Lucky Hotel, Bandra, at 4.15pm, the judgment said.In its claim of one eyewitness seeing an alleged blast conspiracy meeting, “prosecution could have easily established location and movement of accused at the relevant places and times through CDRs. Instead, the CDR was destroyed. This act raises serious doubts over the integrity of the investigation and amounts to a grave violation of right to a fair trial,” the HC special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak held.HC said CDR was of critical importance, particularly because first arrest in 11/7 case was made based on a mobile number allegedly belonging to accused Kamal Ansari (who died in 2021 after conviction in Nagpur prison) from which a religious SMS was sent, arousing suspicion in minds of ATS. HC said prosecution appeared to have done no probe to corroborate the witness’s claim of having met near the masjid or at accused’s house. “Prosecution could have produced the CDR of either the witness or the accused to establish their location,” HC held.The witness’ statement is shrouded in doubt. Besides, while his statement was said to be recorded by an ACP at Chandan Chowki, the certified logbook shows the ACP “did not even go” there that day. Prosecution said allegedly “as per the Al-Qaeda Manual and training given to the accused, they were not supposed to use their mobile phones for operational purposes”.“In the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, a chain of events has to be completed from which a conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn,” HC said. The court added that with the eight unreliable eyewitnesses, the chain could not be completed, and the witness was of no help in establishing the conspiracy claim.