‘Not on Army duty while attending conspiracy meetings for 2008 Malegaon blast’: HC dismisses Prasad Purohit’s discharge plea
x
00:00
1x1.5x1.8x
The Bombay High Court Monday dismissed a plea filed by Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit seeking discharge from the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The court observed Purohit was not discharging duty as an officer of the Indian Army while he was attending the alleged meetings of a group called Abhinav Bharat where the conspiracy for the Malegaon blast was hatched as per the NIA.
Purohit was arrested in the case by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) and after the formation of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), it was transferred to the central agency.
A division bench of Justice Ajey S Gadkari and Justice Prakash D Naik had reserved its verdict in Purohit’s plea on November 29.
Purohit had filed an appeal challenging the order of the trial court that rejected his discharge plea and claimed that the central government had not taken proper sanction to prosecute a serving Army officer.
Advocate Neela Gokhale, representing Purohit, submitted while the agency’s case was that the plan to carry out blasts at Malegaon was hatched at various meetings of Abhinav Bharat, NIA itself said Purohit had informed his superiors about attending the said meetings. Therefore, he was on duty as he was collecting intelligence for the Indian Army by attending conspiracy meetings held before the 2008 blast, the lawyer said.
However, advocate Sandesh Patil, appearing for NIA, said the document that Purohit referred to support his case was his own and not of the agency.
Purohit submitted that NIA failed to avail of prior sanction to prosecute him as per section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The section prescribes a procedure for the prosecution of public servants, including prior sanction sought from the government. Therefore, Purohit argued he should be discharged from the case.
Story continues below this ad
Meanwhile, Patil submitted that Purohit cannot be discharged at the stage where over 280 witnesses have been produced so far by NIA in the trial court and it can be decided at the end of the trial if he can be convicted or acquitted as per merits of the case.
Patil added Purohit was not on duty when he was attending the conspiracy meetings and therefore, he cannot rely on Section 197 of CrPC. He said other documents relied on by Purohit were from the Court of Enquiry of the Army, and are not admissible before the high court.
The NIA lawyer submitted an Army official had recently deposed before the trial court and the said witness had in March 2010 written to the Maharashtra ATS that there was no official communication by Purohit informing about his alleged infiltration into Abhinav Bharat.
Last year, Purohit had told the high court he was an “unsung hero” of the Indian Army and had suffered a lot for nearly nine years in jail before he was released on bail in 2017.
Story continues below this ad
Meanwhile, BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Sameer Kulkarni, co-accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, had last month withdrawn their discharge applications pending before the Bombay High Court. Purohit had also withdrawn his petition alleging defective sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to prosecute him.
The accused withdrew their applications after the high court questioned how the same can be considered since the trial has already begun and over 200 witnesses have been examined and it “cannot set the clock back.”
Six people were killed and over 100 injured on September 29, 2008, when an explosive device placed on a motorbike went off near a mosque at Malegaon in Maharashtra’s Nashik district.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
