Arrested nearly eight and a half years ago in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to cancer patient Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur after holding that “it cannot be said there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations made against her are prima facie true” and that the benefit of bail could not be withheld to her if the ATS charges against her were “grave and serious”.
Meanwhile, in a separate order, the Bench of Justice (Dr) Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi and Justice Ranjit More rejected the bail application of lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, another key accused in the case. While Sadhavi’s family members welcomed the order, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Maharashtra said it will challenge the order.
Talking to mediapersons outside the court, Sadhvi’s brother-in-law Bhagwan Jha said his family would celebrate the court’s order. “Finally, we have won. For nine years she was in jail without evidence. Now we will celebrate the court’s order nationwide,” he said.
“We are going to challenge the High Court’s order in the Supreme Court,” Gulzar Azmi, Secretary of legal Aid department of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Maharashtra, said.
Jamiat had on behalf of victims of blast intervened and opposed bail applications Sadhvi and Col Prohit.
Regarding Col Purohit, then a military Intelligence official, the Bench said, after holding that the charges against him were “serious and grave one, inviting even punishment of death or life imprisonment” and that it did not find him entitled for bail.
“… in our considered opinion, if both the reports of ATS and National Investigation Agency (NIA) are considered conjointly, so far as the appellant is concerned, it cannot be said there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusation made against her are prima facie true. Once it is held so, then the benefit of bail cannot be withheld to the Appellant, even if the offences alleged against her by ATS are grave and serious one,” a HC Bench noted, while granting bail to Sadhvi.
The HC Bench also took cognisance of the fact that Sadhvi was suffering from breast cancer and that she had become infirm and could not even walk without support. The court, however, noted that an Ayurvedic hospital, in which she was being treated, could not properly treat her cancer.
Sadhvi and lt Col Purohit were two of the 11 people charge-sheeted by the ATS on January 20, 2009 in connection with 2008 Malegaon blasts.
It may be recalled that an improvised explosive kept under the seat of a lMl Freedom motor-bicycle had exploded between Bhikku Chowk and Anjuman Chowk, near Noorani Masjid on the night of September 29, 2008, leaving six people dead and injuring 101 others.
The judges said after taking “totality of the facts and circumstances of the case”, they were of the considered opinion that Sadhvi had made out a case for bail under sub-section (5) of section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and ordered that she be released on bail on her furnishing bail bond of Rs 5 lakh with one or two sureties of like amount.
Also, the High Court asked her to deposit her passport, if she held one; report to the NIA if and when required; that she would not tamper evidence or prosecution witnesses and that she would remain present during hearings of the case before the Special court.
After Sadhvi’s arrest in the Malegaon blasts case on October 23, 2008, the Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) -- which had investigated the case initially -- had charged her with having provided motorcycle to absconding one of the accused Ramji. The motorcycle was used for planting bombs and causing bomb blast. The ATS had also charged her with having participated in meetings held in Bhopal where the conspiracy to strike terror by exploding bomb in Malegaon was hatched.
In observations that put things in perspective vis-a-vis the ATS’ first charge against Sadhvi, the judges observed, “The statements of four prosecution witnesses do show that the appellant was not in possession of the said motorcycle since much prior to the incident. The trial Court in this regard observed that the motorcycle was being used by accused Ramji much prior to the date of incident is the defence of the appellant which can be proved during trial. However, we find that this is not the defence of the appellant but these facts are borne out from the material collected by the ATS itself.”
Alluding to the ATS’ second charge against Sadhvi, the judges observed, “Though there is some material on record that the appellant was present at the Bhopal meeting, this material, however, shows that apart from the appellant several other persons were also present at the said meeting. In our view, the same cannot be considered as circumstance against the appellant alone, excluding the other participants, especially, now in the absence of any objectionable and incriminating material attributed to her.”
The grant of bail to Sadhvi comes three months after the NIA told the High Court that it had no objection if Sadhvi is granted bail in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case.
In a submission made on January 19, 2017 before a HC division Bench of Justices RV More and Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi hearing Sadhvi’s petition challenging the trial court’s order rejecting her bail, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the NIA, had said the agency had already held that the provisions of stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were not applicable in the case.
The special court had earlier on June 28, 2016 rejected Sadhvi’s bail, after observing that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that the charges against her were prima facie true. The rejection of Sadhvi’s bail plea had come six weeks after the NIA dropped all charges against her and five others.
In the second supplementary charge-sheet filed before the special court on May 13, 2016, the NIA had dropped all charges against six accused -- Sadhvi, Shiv Kalsangra, Shyam Sahu, Praveen Takkalki, lokesh Sharma, Dhan Choudhury-on the ground that it had “not found” sufficient evidences against them during its investigations.
The NIA had also dropped charges invoked under MCOCA against all other accused in the case, including lt Col Prasad Purohit.