Court rejects Malegaon blast accused’s plea to add ‘Shri’ to namehttps://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/court-rejects-malegaon-blast-accuseds-plea-to-add-shri-to-name-4767206/

Court rejects Malegaon blast accused’s plea to add ‘Shri’ to name

Meanwhile, Dwivedi moved another application, claiming he should not be known as Dayanand Pandey as that was an identity wrongly given to him by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad when they arrested him in 2008.  He has also filed a discharge application, claiming his was a case of mistaken identity.

malegaon blast case, national investigation agency, malegaon blast case accused, shri, Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, Dayanand Pandey
While Dwivedi had claimed his fundamental right was getting violated, the NIA claimed there were no provisions under law for such an addition. (Representational image)

A SPECIAL court has rejected an application by an accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, seeking that his name be prefixed with ‘Shri’. The accused, named in the National Investigation Agency (NIA) chargesheet as Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi alias Dayanand Pandey alias Amrutanand Devtirth, made the application stating that his dignity was getting affected.

Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal, representing the NIA, had submitted that there have been dignitaries who have been named as accused, including former Prime Ministers, but ‘Shri’ was not added to their names. While Dwivedi had claimed his fundamental right was getting violated, the NIA claimed there were no provisions under law for such an addition. The court rejected the application Tuesday, accepting the NIA’s contention.

Meanwhile, Dwivedi moved another application, claiming he should not be known as Dayanand Pandey as that was an identity wrongly given to him by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad when they arrested him in 2008.  He has also filed a discharge application, claiming his was a case of mistaken identity.

Rasal submitted that the ATS had identified an alias of the accused as Pandey at the time of his arrest and that he could have raised an objection at that stage. The court is yet to decide on the application. Meanwhile, the blast accused have challenged the sanction granted by the government on the imposing of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against them.