Purohit role in Malegaon blasts: NIA cites one Military Intelligence note, leaves out many others

But this letter was not the only evidence that NIA gathered to negate Purohit’s claim and prove his culpability in the blasts. During the course of its investigation, the agency recorded statements of seven of Purohit’s colleagues in MI — five were his superiors, two junior to him.

[related-post]

Yet none of these statements are part of the NIA chargesheet filed in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act court in Mumbai last Friday. NIA sources said the statements were not attached to the chargesheet because the agency felt it was “not needed”. They said the letter from the senior MI officer was enough to prove that Purohit was not on any sanctioned operation.

A senior NIA officer said the statements were also not attached because they wanted to avoid a situation where one agency is pitted against another, where the MI structure will be in the public domain.

Sources said it became necessary to probe whether Purohit was part of an intelligence operation while working for Abhinav Bharat because he had claimed so in multiple forums. Not only had he revealed this in a Court of Inquiry conducted by the Army on his role in the blasts, but he had also written multiple letters to different authorities making this claim.

“We investigated this angle thoroughly but got no evidence to prove that Purohit had infiltrated Abhinav Bharat and was indeed on an operation — something that would stand to prove his innocence as he claimed. Not a single of his colleagues, senior or junior seemed to have information of the operation that Purohit claimed to be a part of. As many as seven statements claim that he never shared any information about Abhinav Bharat with MI. The matter was discussed with the Army top brass as well and no evidence to support his claim could be found,” an NIA officer privy to the probe said.

The agency even spoke to Col S S Raikar, who had claimed in the Army Court of Inquiry that Purohit had told him that he was joining a “social organisation”. “He too did not have any knowledge of Abhinav Bharat,” the officer said.

Sources said the onus is now on Purohit to prove his innocence by substantiating his claim. “If he can produce any defence witness to substantiate his claims, we will push our case through these witnesses. Till then, we do not think there is a need to make these senior MI officers prosecution witness,” the officer said.

The NIA chargesheet now only has a March 29, 2011 letter written by Brigadier Gautam Deb, Deputy Director General MI (B), to then chief of Maharashtra ATS, Rakesh Maria, to negate Purohit’s claim of having infiltrated Abhinav Bharat.

“There is no input available with this office regarding any official communication made by Lt Col P S Purohit to his superior officers, pertaining to any terrorist related inputs or information about the meetings of Abhinav Bharat, as mentioned in your letter…” Deb’s letter states. “Not withstanding the above, we have also written to concerned offices for inputs in this regard, for further confirmation.”

WATCH INDIAN EXPRESS VIDEOS HERE

The NIA chargesheet states Purohit floated Abhinav Bharat in 2006 despite being a serving commissioned officer of the armed forces which is against service rules. It said that he, along with other accused, collected huge funds for Abhinav Bharat which were not only used for subversive activities but part of it was also diverted by him to buy a bungalow in Nashik.

It has cited forensic examination reports to show that he attended conspiracy meetings of Abhinav Bharat which wanted to create a separate Hindu Rashtra. It has detailed his post-blast conduct through phone intercepts where he is observed telling other accused about security agencies closing in on them, that they must escape and destroy evidence.