Picking several serious loopholes in the investigations conducted by Maharashtra’s Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, the NIA on Friday dropped all charges against Sadhvi Pragya Thakur and five other accused, and withdrew all the charges invoked under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against all other accused, including lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit.
Besides Pragya, the NIA dropped charges against Shiv Kalsangra, Shyam Sahu, Praveen Takkalki, lokesh Sharma, and Dhan Choudhury on the ground that it had “not found” sufficient evidences against them. It was the second supplementary chargesheet filed before Special Judge SD Tekale. The NIA said it had submitted in the final report before the court that the prosecution against the six was not maintainable.
It may be recalled that an improvised explosive device kept under the seat of a Hero Honda motorcycle 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.
Dropping MCOCA charges against all the other accused in the case, the NIA stated, “It has been established that no offence under the MCOC Act is attracted in the instant case. In furtherance of same, the confessional statements recorded under provisions of the MCOCA by ATS Mumbai have not been relied upon by the NIA in submitting the present final report.”
While one had expected lt Col Prasad Purohit too would get a clean chit, it did not happen. “After undertaking a pain-staking and professional investigation”, the NIA recommended prosecution against 10 accused, including lt Col Prasad Purohit, for offences registered under Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Apart from lt Col Prasad Purohit, nine others against whom the NIA has recommended prosecution are: Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Rakesh Dawade, Jagdish Mahatre, Sudhakar Dwevedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Ramachandra Kalasagara, and Sandeep Dange.
lt Col Prasad Purohit has been charged with offences under various IPC sections, including 120 b (conspiracy), 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder), sections 3, 4,5 and 6 of the Explosives Substance Act and 15, 16,17, 18, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
listing several “shortcomings” in the investigations by the ATS, the NIA accused it of having tortured the accused to extract confessional statements and invoking of MCOCA provisions against them. The NIA claimed that owing to lacunae in them, the courts did not believe many of the confessional statements of the accused.
Substantiating its contention, the NIA stated that one of the accused, Sudhakar Dwivedi, when produced before the magistrate for confirmation of the confessional statement made by him told the court that his confession was extracted after torturing him.
The NIA also attributed “dubious” methods adopted during investigation by the ATS to the disappearance of one of the main witness. “The CBI during its investigation in the disappearance of the witness has submitted findings against the officers of the ATS Mumbai,” the agency said.
In its elaboration, the NIA stated, “ATS Mumbai invoked the MCOCA on the basis of the involvement of accused Rakesh Dhawade in the previous two blast cases i.e. Parbhani and Jalna in which the concerned courts had taken the cognisance.
The way and circumstances in which the ATS invoked the provisions of MCOCA in this case becomes questionable”.
The NIA’s supplementary chargesheet in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case comes nearly 11 months after Special Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian created a major stir in the legal and political circles across the country by saying she had been told to go “soft” on the case and requesting the investigating agency to denotify her from the case. So much so that Salian said that she wanted the NIA to “denotify” her formally from the case so that she could take up other cases against the agency.
“Before the matter came up for a regular hearing on June 12 (2015), the same officer came to my office and told me that his higher-ups did not want me to appear for the State in the case. He also told me that the NIA had appointed another lawyer to appear for the State of Maharashtra in the case in the trial court,” Salian said.