Malegaon blasts: ‘Hindu extremists’ question NIA probe, say other agencies did a reliable job
Two Hindu men facing charges for their alleged role in the 2006 Malegaon blasts sought to pit the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against other probe agencies on Thursday as they applied for bail in the special court.
The ‘Hindu extremists’, Manohar Narwaria and Lokesh Sharma, contended that the investigation carried out by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was more reliable and scientific as compared to the NIA.
Over the years, probes by different agencies have given a curious turn to the Malegaon blasts case, with two sets of people – one Muslim and another Hindu – being shown as the perpetrators of the terror attack that claimed 31 lives and wounded over 300 on September 8, 2006.
In their bail plea, filed by lawyer Prashant Maggu, the duo cites the NIA charge sheet to press for reprieve. The accused say the document doesn’t even disclose the source of explosive used for the crime. “It is submitted that graver the crime, more complicated becomes the process of investigation as the criminal, who perpetrates crimes against the society, by resorting to terrorist acts, not only removes the traces of recovery of evidence, but also leaves certain clues that would mislead the investigating agency,” states the application, referring to the first set of the accused who are now out on bail.
It goes on to add that it would be difficult to believe that the Hindu accused would carry out the blasts without even disguising themselves properly.
On Thursday, the case was heard after a long break as Special Judge AL Pansare took charge only this month. It was for the first time that both sets of accused were present in the court – so far, they had been produced one after the other for the fear of tiff. The proceedings went event free.
During the hearing, the Muslim accused pointed out that despite the NIA literally exonerating them in its latest charge sheet, their discharge application hadn’t been heard for the past three years.
The NIA’s course of investigation took the ‘Hindu’ route after Swami Aseemanand, held for the the 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case of Hyderabad, claimed that Hindu elements were behind the Malegaon blasts. Following this, the NIA arrested four accused of which Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh and Lokesh Sharma are accused in other blast cases as well.
According to the NIA charge sheet, the four men from Indore planned the blasts as a “revenge attack” following the attacks on the Raghunath temple in Jammu in 2002, Shramjeevi Express in 2005 and Sankat Mochan temple in Varanasi in 2006.
The 25-page bail application talks extensively about how the investigation in the case kept getting transferred from one agency to the other ‘without any reason.’ It further says that if NIA wanted to investigate the case based on the alleged confession of Aseemanand, it was necessary for them to approach the High Court as it became a case of re-investigation and not further investigation. “Considering the complicity of the matter and the fact that there are three charge sheets filed which are materially contrary to each other in respect of the nature and scope of the crime, the role and identity of the accused as alleged by NIA cannot show that the accused is involved in the crime.” the bail application reads.
A reply on the application has been sought from not only the NIA but also the ATS and the CBI.
The ‘Hindu extremists’, Manohar Narwaria and Lokesh Sharma, contended that the investigation carried out by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was more reliable and scientific as compared to the NIA.
Over the years, probes by different agencies have given a curious turn to the Malegaon blasts case, with two sets of people – one Muslim and another Hindu – being shown as the perpetrators of the terror attack that claimed 31 lives and wounded over 300 on September 8, 2006.
In the first phase of the probe, CBI and ATS showed nine Muslim men as accused, before the case was taken over by the NIA in 2011. Narwaria, Sharma and two others came into the picture in the second phase.
In their bail plea, filed by lawyer Prashant Maggu, the duo cites the NIA charge sheet to press for reprieve. The accused say the document doesn’t even disclose the source of explosive used for the crime. “It is submitted that graver the crime, more complicated becomes the process of investigation as the criminal, who perpetrates crimes against the society, by resorting to terrorist acts, not only removes the traces of recovery of evidence, but also leaves certain clues that would mislead the investigating agency,” states the application, referring to the first set of the accused who are now out on bail.
It goes on to add that it would be difficult to believe that the Hindu accused would carry out the blasts without even disguising themselves properly.
On Thursday, the case was heard after a long break as Special Judge AL Pansare took charge only this month. It was for the first time that both sets of accused were present in the court – so far, they had been produced one after the other for the fear of tiff. The proceedings went event free.
During the hearing, the Muslim accused pointed out that despite the NIA literally exonerating them in its latest charge sheet, their discharge application hadn’t been heard for the past three years.
The NIA’s course of investigation took the ‘Hindu’ route after Swami Aseemanand, held for the the 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case of Hyderabad, claimed that Hindu elements were behind the Malegaon blasts. Following this, the NIA arrested four accused of which Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh and Lokesh Sharma are accused in other blast cases as well.
According to the NIA charge sheet, the four men from Indore planned the blasts as a “revenge attack” following the attacks on the Raghunath temple in Jammu in 2002, Shramjeevi Express in 2005 and Sankat Mochan temple in Varanasi in 2006.
The 25-page bail application talks extensively about how the investigation in the case kept getting transferred from one agency to the other ‘without any reason.’ It further says that if NIA wanted to investigate the case based on the alleged confession of Aseemanand, it was necessary for them to approach the High Court as it became a case of re-investigation and not further investigation. “Considering the complicity of the matter and the fact that there are three charge sheets filed which are materially contrary to each other in respect of the nature and scope of the crime, the role and identity of the accused as alleged by NIA cannot show that the accused is involved in the crime.” the bail application reads.
A reply on the application has been sought from not only the NIA but also the ATS and the CBI.
