The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Maharashtra government to explain why the September 2006 Malegaon blast case was transferred to the CBI. The court observed that the reason for the transfer of the case when the ATS had already got the chargesheet ready needs to be examined.
The court was responding to a petition by three of the accused. The court has asked the state to explain why investigation was handed to CBI after chargesheet was filed, said public prosecutor P A Pol.
The petitioners had also urged the court for a report from the CBI on the progress made in the investigations after the case was transferred in 2006. They claimed that the CBI did not carry out proper investigations due to political intervention.
The CBI has sought two weeks to explain their stand,said petitioners lawyer Amin Solkar.
The three accused,Noorulhudha Samsudoha,Shabbir Masiullah and Moahmmed Jahid Ansari,expressing dissatisfaction over the investigations,have also sought a Special Investigation Team monitored by HC to probe the case.
The accused stated that they have been languishing in prison on the basis of fabricated evidence. They claim the government and police had shut their eyes to the alleged involvement of Hindu fundamentalist groups.
They stated that several incidents resulting in recovery of illegally possessed explosives and deaths of Hindus belonging to extremist groups in untimely explosions suggested that the perpetrators could not be Muslims.
The petitioners have also raised doubts on the police role in the case. They allege that police deliberately neglected prior information on the blasts. The petition states that Noorulhudha was under constant scrutiny of the police after he was picked up and detained in the Aurangabad arms haul and 2006 train blasts cases. How could he have hatched the conspiracy when he was constantly under police scrutiny, states the petition.
The applicants,relying on a recent affidavit by the lone approver in the case,Abrar Ahmed,who turned hostile this year,said Abrar was a police informer roped in to give false evidence in lieu of money. Abrar,through an affidavit in April 2009,had chosen not to remain an approver.
The petitioners have also raised doubts on the role played by Rajwardhan (a party to the petition),the then Superintendent of Police Nashik (Rural) who is now with the Intelligence Bureau,in the probe.