Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
REJECTING THE bail application of Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said there is “reasonable grounds” to believe that accusations against him are prima facie true. “This appears to be the reason why National Investigation Agency (NIA) has also not given a clean chit to him, though it has done so in respect of some of the co-accused,” the bench of Justices Ranjit More and Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi said. Purohit was arrested in November 2008 for allegedly procuring RDX to carry out the blast, and for criminal conspiracy. The court held that the charges against him are grave, inviting punishment of death or life imprisonment.
While the court did not consider provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act while considering bail application or confessions recorded under the Act, it said that a case under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was applicable against Purohit. On deciding the criteria for bail application, the bench said it had considered the earlier chargesheet filed by Maharashtra ATS, and the subsequent report by NIA after re-investigation.
Referring to an apex court judgment, the High Court said even if a “fresh” probe or “re-investigation” is carried out by a different agency, the earlier investigation report is not wiped out from the record in the absence of any specific order passed by the higher court to that effect while ordering such a re-investigation.
“If one has regard to the nature of allegations against Purohit and other accused of using the bomb, or, explosive substance, with intent to threaten, or, likely to threaten, the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India and with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or particular community of the people in India, like, the Muslim community, it falls within the definition of terrorist act,” the court observed.
While the ATS claimed to have found RDX traces in the house of one of the accused — the material allegedly procured by Purohit — the NIA last year contended that an ATS officer had planted the RDX. Referring to this, the court said that versions of both ATS and NIA need to be “tested at the time of the trial. At this stage, this court cannot pick or choose one version over the other.”
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
