Court rejects plea of ex-RSS worker offering to be witness after 16 years

The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) first probed the case before the CBI took over in 2007 on the state government’s request.

He had also sought directions to add three men as accused in the case, including a senior Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader, alleging that they were the main conspirators of the blast, and that he was privy to the conspiracy when it was first mooted in Mumbai in 2003. He claimed to be an important witness as he had attended a training camp in Sinhagad, Pune, along with other accused.

“In this long period of 14 years (since CBI took over) the applicant (Shinde) never attempted to approach the investigating machinery with information which he had been keeping with him for such a long time.

As submitted by the prosecution, 10 witnesses have been examined and suddenly the applicant has approached the Court saying he has valuable information about meetings of the accused at Mumbai, Pune and Thane.

As such, the application in the present form is not tenable,” the court said in its order passed on January 17, made available on Tuesday. The CBI, which is the prosecuting agency in the ongoing trial in the Nanded case, had opposed Shinde’s plea, stating that it was not maintainable.

Shinde in his August application had sought to add three persons as accused in the case – one Milind Parande, secretary general of VHP; second is Rakesh Dhawade, who was earlier named accused in the Malegaon 2008 blast case, but subsequently discharged of terror charges.

The third was a man named Ravi Dev. Shinde had also sought that he be examined as a witness, referring to Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court said that while provisions under the section allows the court at any stage to summon material witnesses or examine a person, it questioned why the applicant never approached the investigating agency which could have recorded his statement and made him a witness.

It also said that allegations made by Shinde against the three have not found support from CBI. CBI had filed a closure report in 2020 against an absconding accused, Professor Dev, stating that despite the agency’s best efforts, his identity could not be ascertained.