2008 Malegaon blasts case: ‘No reason to believe that allegations against Takkalki prima facie true’

The court has observed that from the material that has been put before it by both the Maharashtra ATS and the NIA, it appears that Takkalki was a “paid worker of Abhinav Bharat”.

By: Express News Service | Mumbai | Published:September 4, 2016 2:43 am
Malegaon Blast, Maharashtra news, Malegaon blast victim's father, Special Court presiding over Malegaon blast, Special court order on Malegaon blast, Malegaon blast news, latest news, India news, On the contention of an intervener that Takkalki had been absconding after the blast, the court observed that statements of five witnesses pointed out that they had been meeting him after the blasts and till his arrest in 2011.

IN ITS detailed order granting bail to 2008 Malegaon blast accused Praveen Takkalki, the special court said it has no reason to believe the allegations against the accused is “prima facie true”.

The court has observed that from the material that has been put before it by both the Maharashtra ATS and the NIA, it appears that Takkalki was a “paid worker of Abhinav Bharat” and was just following the instructions of co-accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit.

“It is difficult to infer that the accused had any knowledge about the conspiracy of committing the bomb blasts or that he had any intention to commit the said offence,” the court has observed.

It also said that as a ‘paid worker’, he was part of a meeting at Bhosla Military school in September 2008.

“There is nothing to show that any discussion in respect of the alleged conspiracy took place in the meeting,” special judge SD Tekale has observed.

Though one of the witnesses examined by the ATS claims that Takkalki had resided in the house of co-accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi, which was used for preparation of the bomb days before the blast took place, the court observed that “the knowledge of this fact cannot be attributed prima facie to Takkalki”.

On the contention of an intervener that Takkalki had been absconding after the blast, the court observed that statements of five witnesses pointed out that they had been meeting him after the blasts and till his arrest in 2011.