The Natinal Investigation Agency (NIA) has given its no objection to the bail application filed by accused Praveen Takkalki in the Malegaon 2008 blast case. Takkalki had approached the special NIA court after the agency filed its chargesheet last month stating that there was not enough evidence available against him.
Takkalki was arrested in 2011 by the Maharashtra ATS and is alleged to be a close associate of Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, an accused in the case. In its reply, the NIA has referred to its chargesheet stating that the only evidence against Takkalki are the facts mentioned by him in his confessional statements. With the NIA stating that MCOCA should be revoked in the case, the statements do not retain their value as evidence, leaving no other evidence against Takkalki. In the ATS case, it was alleged that Takkalki had participated in the training camp of Abhinav Bharat at Panchmarhi in October 2008.
The NIA has, however, opposed the bail plea filed by another accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi.
- 2008 Malegaon blasts case: ‘No reason to believe that allegations against Takkalki prima facie true’
- Bail granted to Praveen Takkalki in Malegaon 2008 blasts case
- 2008 Malegaon blast: State ATS seeks copy of NIA chargesheet which called its probe ‘dubious’
- Slamming NIA for not probing her role, court rejects Sadhvi Pragya’s bail plea
- 2008 Malegaon blast: Maharashtra special sourt admits plea opposing bail to Sadhvi Pragya
- Three Malegaon accused seek bail
The agency had maintained that there was enough evidence for a trial to be initiated against Chaturvedi, a full-time worker with Abhinav Bharat. The chargesheet claims that Chaturvedi had organised and conducted various meetings with other accused persons “in furtherance of their common object of the criminal conspiracy to commit unlawful activities”.
The arguments on the bail applications, including that of accused Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, will continue in the court on Monday.
Meanwhile, the court rejected an intervention plea seeking inspection of documents that was part of evidence submitted in court.
The NIA had opposed the plea claiming that a third party, who was neither an accused and nor a victim, could not be allowed to access court documents.
“The court has rejected one of the intervention pleas while two others were withdrawn by the petitioners,” said special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal.