A victim of the Malegaon 2008 blast has approached the special NIA court claiming that the chargesheet filed by the NIA last month was done under “political influence”. The NIA had on May 13 filed the second supplementary chargesheet in the case stating that there was no evidence against four previously chargesheeted accused by the Maharashtra ATS, including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur.
The intervention plea filed by Nisar Bilal, a resident of Malegaon who was injured in the 2008 blast, had prayed for the supplementary chargesheet to be discarded and for the trial to proceed with the ATS chargesheet. In his application, Bilal stated that the NIA chargesheet is ‘not true’. “They (NIA) manipulated and twisted the evidence for favouring the accused persons as per the say and desire of the government, hence is liable to be discarded,” the application stated.
- A trial and an ever-widening chasm in Malegaon
- 2008 Malegaon blast case: Court not exonerating Pragya Thakur is vindication of our probe, says ATS
- 2008 Malegaon blast case: Accused and charges
- 2008 Malegaon blast case: MCOCA gone, Sadhvi Pragya and Colonel Purohit to face trial under anti-terror law
- 2008 Malegaon blast: Here is a brief timeline of the case
- 2006 Malegaon blasts: Why ATS, CBI and NIA reached different conclusions, asks Bombay HC
The application also raised doubts over some aspects in the NIA chargesheet. This includes the re-recording of statements of some of the witnesses who were part of the earlier ATS probe. The intervention plea claimed that the NIA re-recording statements were ‘contrary to law’ and such a decision should have been left to the court. It claimed that there was ‘no need’ for the NIA to re-examine as they could have been termed as hostile witnesses by the court during the trial stage.
It further claimed that it is only after the change in the political party in power that the investigation conducted by the earlier agency, the ATS, has been ‘discredited’. “The perusal of the supplementary chargesheet shows that the NIA officer did not try to collect any additional evidence, which can assist the court for fair trial, on the contrary they put all their efforts and concentration only how to contradict the earlier chargesheet filed… with sole purpose to dilute the said case against selected accused,” the application claimed. It also questioned the NIA dropping the MCOCA charge which has rendered the confessional statements of accused inadmissible.
Two other pleas have also been filed seeking intervention in the bail application filed by Sadhvi and another seeking access to documents which is evidence before the court. Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal said the court has directed the NIA to respond to the applications by June 10.