In a new twist to the 2008 Malegaon blasts case, a special National Investigating Agency (NIA) court on Wednesday dropped charges under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, lt Col Prasad Purohit and five other key accused in the much-discussed case.
However, Additional Sessions Judge SD Tekale rejected the applications of key accused Sadhvi Pragya, lt Col Purohit, Sameer Kulkarni, Ramesh Upadhyay and Sudhakar Dwivedi for discharge from the case.
The seven accused against whom MCOCA charges were dropped but continue to face charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) are: Sadhvi Pragya, Col Purohit, Dwivedi, Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Ajay Rahirkar.
Two other accused Rakesh Dhawde and Jagdish Mhatre will be tried under only under the Arms Act.
The Judge, however, discharged three accused Pravin Takalki, Shyamlal Sahu and Shivnarayan Kalsangra from the 2008 Malegaon blasts case.
While dropping MCOCA charges against seven key accused, the special court also dropped some UAPA charges against them. “The UAPA sections 17 (raising funds for a terrorist organisation or a terrorist attack), 20 (being part of a terrorist organisation) and 23 (aiding somebody who is part of a terrorist organisation) have been dropped against all accused,” the court ruled.
The seven key accused will now be tried under Sections 16 (committing a terror act) and 18 (criminal conspiracy) of the UAPA, and sections 120(b) (punishment of criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder) and 326 (intentionally causing harm to others) of the IPC.
The special court scheduled the next hearing for January 15, when UAPA charges would be framed against the seven key accused, and two other accused under the Arms Act.
The court observed that it could not exonerate Sadhvi Pragya from the case as her motorbike was used in the blast.
The NIA court ruled that since most of the accused were out on bail, all previous bonds and sureties will continue.
Sadhvi Pragya and lt Col Prasad Purohit were two of the 11 persons chargesheeted 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 motorcycle had exploded between Bhikku Chowk and Anjuman Chowk, near Noorani Masjid on the night of September 29, 2008, leaving six persons dead and injuring 101 others.
The Bombay High Court had on April 25 this year granted bail to Sadhvi Pragya, 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 were not “grave and serious”.
Subsequently on August 21 this year, the Supreme Court granted bail to lt Col Purohit, after noting that there were contradictions in the chargesheets filed by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
While granting bail to Sadhvi Pragya, the HC Bench had taken cognizance of the fact that Sadhvi Pragya was suffering from breast cancer and that she had become infirm and could even walk without support. The court, however, noted that an Ayurvedic hospital, in which she was being treated, could not give a proper treatment for her cancer.
After Sadhvi Pragya’s arrest in the Malegaon blasts case on October 23, 2008, 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, which 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 ATS’ first charge against Sadhvi Pragya, the HC Bench observed while granting her bail, “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 Pragya, the HC Judges had observed, “Though there is some material on record that 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”.