Mumbai: Police has implemented UAPA Act in the Bir Ard Masla Mecca Masjid blast case. On the midnight of March 30, Vijay Agon and Shri Ram Ashok placed a bomb in the mosque and exploded it. This explosion was done with the help of jetliner and detonator. In this case, the police had earlier registered a case under Arms Act and other sections, but after that Muslim organizations had demanded to prosecute the accused under UAPA Act and NSA.
The Beed blast was investigated by the local crime branch, in which the crime branch found that the explosion was very powerful and detonators were also used along with jetliner rods. On this basis, UAPA Act has been implemented on the recommendation of the Crime Branch. Police have registered a case against both the terrorists under sections 16 and 18 of UAPA. Since the Beed blast, Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) is investigating it along with the police. The ATS is investigating the connection and financing of terrorists in this case, including how jetliner rods were made available to the accused and who provided them jetliner rods without license or permit. Along with this, investigation is also going on to find out how many more people and conspirators are involved in this case. ATS said that investigation is going on every aspect and point of the Beed bomb blast, however, ATS has so far questioned many people in this case, including family members and well-wishers of the accused as well as their friends and acquaintances. ATS is trying to uncover the conspiracy before the blast in the Beed Mecca Masjid blast case because before the blast, accused Vijay Agon had released a video and uploaded it on the status threatening Muslims to remove the mosque and only after that the blast took place here. The local police had also registered a case of spreading religious hatred against the accused a day earlier and the mosque was blown up the next day.

Mumbai: Fallon Guliwala, wife of actor Ajaz Khan, who was arrested in November 2024 after narcotics were recovered from her residence, has been granted bail by a special court in Mumbai.

Guliwala had been in custody for over four months. The court has imposed certain conditions for her bail, including the submission of her passport, a restriction on travel, and mandatory attendance before the investigating officer three times a week until the chargesheet is filed.

Her lawyer, Ayaz Khan, argued that she was unaware of the recovered items and that she was not the only occupant of the premises. He also mentioned that the CCTV system was turned off during the raid, and no videography or photography was conducted.

Special Public Prosecutor Vibhavari Pathak opposed the bail plea, stating that a prima facie case existed against Guliwala.

Considering that the seizure process had already been completed, the court granted bail but with strict conditions.

The recently introduced Waqf Bill by the government has once again sparked debate within the Muslim community. The bill is being presented as a step towards better management, transparency, and protection of Waqf properties across the country. However, differing opinions have emerged over whether it truly serves the interests of the Muslim community.

The new bill includes several key provisions, such as enhancing the powers of Waqf Boards, introducing a digital registry of Waqf properties, and initiating strict action against illegal encroachments. The government claims that the bill will ensure the protection of Waqf assets and that the revenue generated from them can be effectively used for education, healthcare, and welfare projects.

However, some religious and social organizations have expressed concerns. They argue that Waqf properties are inherently linked to religious purposes, and direct government interference could compromise religious autonomy. Some fear that the bill may hinder the freedom and original purpose of Waqf properties.

On the other hand, legal experts and reformist voices believe that if implemented honestly, the bill could be a positive step for the Muslim community. With better administration of Waqf assets—many of which have been mismanaged or encroached upon—the community could benefit in significant ways.

What’s the Difference Between the Old and the New Waqf Bill?

Old Waqf Law:
The earlier Waqf law, enacted under the “Waqf Act 1995,” aimed to regulate and safeguard thousands of Waqf properties across India. Key features included:

• Establishment of State Waqf Boards.
• Responsibility for property management vested in the Boards.
• Mandatory registration of Waqf properties.
• Appointment of Mutawallis (caretakers) with board approval.

Over time, however, the law revealed weaknesses in its implementation. Problems such as illegal encroachments, corruption, and ineffective oversight continued to rise.

New Waqf Bill:
The new Waqf Bill introduces several major changes, aiming to modernize the system, enhance transparency, and incorporate technology. Key provisions include:

• Digital Registry: All Waqf properties to be registered and monitored online.
• Central Database: A national Waqf portal to provide public access to information.
• Action Against Encroachments: Legal powers to swiftly remove illegal occupants.
• Administrative Transparency: Stronger audit mechanisms and transparent functioning of Waqf Boards.
• Grievance Redressal System: A responsive complaint cell to address corruption and misuse.

Summary of Differences:

The use of modern technology, improved transparency, and administrative reforms in the new Waqf Bill are promising aspects. However, some scholars and religious groups worry that increasing government involvement may infringe upon religious autonomy. The actual impact of the bill will largely depend on its execution and the extent to which the Muslim community is consulted and included in the process.

For now, it remains too early to say whether the bill will prove to be entirely beneficial for the Muslim community. Its success hinges on fair implementation and inclusive governance.