Six weeks after it had dropped all charges against Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and five others in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Tuesday suffered a jolt, as a special court rejected Sadhvi Pragya’s bail plea, observing that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that the charges against her were prima facie true.
Special Judge SD Tekale, who presides over cases relating to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) rejected Sadhvi Pragya’s bail application at an in-camera session, after hearing an intervention application filed by a person injured in the blasts.
Picking holes in the NIA’s chargesheet during investigation, sufficient evidence has not been found against six accused, including Sadhvi Pragya, the Judge held that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe charges against Sadhvi Pragya were prima facie true.
“It cannot be said that due to filing of further report by the NIA, there is any change in circumstances. If this is the position (of NIA), then merely on the ground that NIA has given no objection, it is difficult to accept the prayer (bail) of applicant,” Judge Tekale observed.
It may be recalled that an improvised explosive kept under the seat of a Hero Honda motor-bicycle had exploded at Malegaon’s Bhikku Chowk, near Noorani Masjid on the night of September 29, 2008, leaving six people dead and injuring 101 others.
Alluding to the motorcycle used in the blast owned by Sadhavi Pragya, the Judge said “at this prima facie stage she can’t avoid her connection with it being registered in her name and she being the owner of the same”.
Noting that “safe conclusion” could be drawn on the basis of witnesses’ statements Sadhavi Pragya was present at a meeting (held in Bhopal to hatch a conspiracy to engineer the blasts), the Judge said that there was discussion about jihadi activities in Aurangabad and Malegaon and she along with others discussed preventing the activities.
“Prima Facie there was a Bhopal meeting and she (Sadhvi Pragya) was there,” the Judge observed.
The Judge also observed that the participants in the meeting wanted to establish ‘Hindu Rashtra’ and their discussion showed that they wanted to establish government in exile.
Advocate Wahab Khan, appearing for 64-year-old businessman and intervening applicant Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal who was injured in the blasts, said that the special court upbraided the National Investigation Agency(NIA) for conducting a fresh investigation under the pretext of carrying out further probe.
“The court has accepted our arguments that the confession (of other accused) can be relied upon even if the MCOCA is dropped from the case,” Khan claimed.
On June 17, 2016, Bilal filed an intervention application before the special court, opposing Sadhvi Pragya’s bail plea.
On June 8, 2016, Bilal filed an application, urging the court to discard the second supplementary charge-sheet filed by the NIA before the special court. The applicant claimed that the charge sheet appeared to be “politically influenced”, and seems to have been prepared by the government to help and facilitate the accused persons to come out from jail.
On May 30, Sadhvi Pragya’s advocate Prashant Maggu filed an application before the special court seeking bail for his client and for dropping her name from the list of accused.
Sadhvi Pragya’s application stated that Sadhvi Pragya’s bail plea had earlier been rejected on the ground that the investigations were still going on. But with the NIA having dropped MCOCA charges against her, she was entitled to bail.
Sadhvi Pragya has been behind the bars for the last seven-and-a-half years.
After the rejection of Sadhvi Pragya’s bail plea, her legal team indicated that it would move the Bombay High Court seeking bail, as the next step
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 Pragya, 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.
In a news release issued soon after filing the charge-sheet, the NIA said that “During investigation, sufficient evidences have not been found” against six accused including Sadhvi Pragya and that it had submitted in the final report before the court that the prosecution against them was not maintainable.
Dropping MCOCA charges against all the other accused in the case, the NIA stated: “During the course of investigation, it has been established that no offence under MCOC Act is attracted in the instant case. In furtherance of same, the confessional statements recorded under provisions of MCOC Act by ATS Mumbai have not been relied up on by the NIA in submitting the present Final report.”