Gangster Abu Salem has denied in his statement before the TADA court here that he went to the house of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt and gave him two AK-47 rifles and hand grenades prior to the 1993 Mumbai blasts.

Dutt was convicted in the 1993 blasts case for possession of an AK-47 rifle and sentenced to five years in jail.

Salem submitted his statement to the court under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, which enables the accused to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him or her.

Salem, Riyaz Siddiqui, Karimullah Khan, Feroze Abdul Rashid, Tahir Merchant and Mustafa Dossa are facing trial now as they were arrested in the case later. The court had in 2006 convicted 100 accused, including Yakub Memon who was hanged last month.

“It is also false that two or three days later he, along with other accused, (again) went to Dutt’s house and brought (back) a bag containing two rifles, bullets and grenades,” the statement says.

Salem also contends in the statement that his trial, after the termination of extradition order by Portuguese court, is “illegal, unwarranted and bad in law.”

In January 2012, Portugal’s Supreme Court upheld an order which cancelled Salem’s extradition from that country because Indian authorities slapped some charges attracting death penalty on him, violating the terms of extradition.

Extradition was based on false information and documents given to the government of Portugal, he adds.

Further, CBI did not place all the relevant documents before the TADA court regarding the extradition and hence the court was misled into framing additional charges, it says.

The trial “on the basis of police custody, forced confession and new fabricated material” is illegal, it says.

The statement claims that Salem did not know any of the co-accused of the blasts conspiracy.

The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission has initiated a probe into last week’s raids by Malwani police at hotels and a beach taking suo motu cognisance of the matter.

“Yes, on the basis of a report published in a daily, we have initiated an inquiry into the conduct of police officials and would seek details of action (raids) from Police Commissioner,” said MSHRC Chairmam Justice S R Bannurmath.

“I have to make an inquiry and call for the report from the Police Commissioner. If we come to know that innocent persons were troubled unnecessarily, we will take further action,” he said.

The Commission has already received few complaints through e-mails from common people but not from the victims so far, he said, adding “we are proposing to register a case and inquire into the incident.”

“But, as per the procedure, first we will have to register a case,” he added.

Meanwhile, women rights activist Abha Singh slammed the police raids, saying “the police officers made an illegal entry into private rooms of couples who were not violating the law. This would amount to criminal trespass, an offence under section 448 of the IPC.”

She claimed that the couples were subjected to “criminal restraint and wrongful confinement for about five hours”, which is an offence under IPC sections 341 and 342.

“Since these are cognisable sections, the lawful course is to file an FIR against the defaulting cops so that the rule of law prevails,” she said.

Former Mumbai police commissioner Julio Ribeiro sought to know what is “moral policing” and under which rule the policemen raided hotel rooms.

“I know normal policing according to the rule book and the law of the land, not moral policing. Under which rule they raided the hotel rooms where consenting adults had checked in,” Ribeiro said.

This act of moral policing was very “funny and stupid”, he said.

Terming the raids as “absolutely unnecessary,” Maharashtra State Women Commission’s former chairperson Susieben Shah said “it was embarrassing that the couples had to face public scrutiny.”

Aam Aadmi Party leader’s national spokesperson Preeti Sharma Menon called for sensitising policemen to contemporary social values.

“There is a need for large-scale sensitisation of the police personnel about the contemporary social values systems,” she said.

“It’s is really sad that they are guided by the repressive ideas promoted by the current government,” she alleged.

“I am relieved that the Police Commissioner has ordered an inquiry, but it has to be followed up by action, which we all know is doubtful,” Menon said.

A team of Malwani police station officials led by DCP (Zone XI) Vikram Deshmane had conducted raids at few hotels, resorts and lodges as well as beaches at Madh Island and Aksa on August 6.

Later, 61 people, including 13 couples, were arrested under section 110 (indecent behaviour in public) of Maharashtra Police Act.

However, they were let off after being fined Rs. 1,200 each with an undertaking that they will appear before the local magistrate when required.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, asking the couple to cooperate with the investigating agencies.

The relief for Teesta comes after the CBI had last month rejected her anticipatory bail plea.

The CBI had also described Teesta as “a threat to the national security”.

However, in contrary to the CBI, the Bombay High Court emphasised that Teesta Setalvad and her husband did not appear to be “any threat to sovereignty and integrity of state or a threat to security”.

Teesta and Anand are accused of violating the FCRA regulations by receiving funds from Ford Foundation between 2004 and 2008.

The couple, however claims that they did not violate any rule.