Malegaon blast case: ATS investigation riddled with 'loopholes', NIA tells Bombay High Court
The division bench of the Bombay High Court Justice Ranjit More and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi had asked the question as to why the agency had re-investigated the case.
The investigation done by Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) of Maharashtra was riddled with "loopholes" and their story "incoherent" in the 2008 Malegaon blast case in which seven people had died and over 100 were injured.
This statement was made by special public prosecutor Sandesh Patil, who is representing the National Investigating Agency (NIA) in the Bombay High Court which is hearing the bail application of Lt Col Purohit, an accused in the case.
The division bench of the Bombay High Court Justice Ranjit More and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi had asked the question as to why the agency had re-investigated the case.
The NIA had re-recorded statements of a few witnesses whose statement had been recorded by ATS earlier. Justice More asked, "In further investigation, can the NIA re-examine witnesses?" Patil told the court, "The agency decided to re-examine the case as it had the expertise in this field. We had to see if the ATS investigation had been done properly as the NIA cannot just accept any investigation that has been done and handed over to it."
Patil added that in furtherance to the issues that cropped up during the investigations, the NIA had even wanted the custody of the accused persons in the case but that was not granted by court. So they questioned a few witnesses. "The details revealed by witnesses was recorded. The story before us was different from the story recorded by ATS," added Patil.
The NIA had examined 109 witnesses during the process of investigation, out of which 17 witnesses are common in both the chargesheets filed by the ATS and NIA. "After investigation, the NIA concluded that there are six accused against whom charges do not apply," added Patil, speaking about Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and five others against whom the NIA has found no evidence and has thus sought that they be discharged from the case.
Sadhvi too has filed for bail in the Bombay High Court.
Prior to this, Purohit's advocate Shrikant Shivde finished his arguments in the case stating that he had been picked up by civil police based on an FIR registered in Pune, which was a case of forgery of arms documents. "There is an elaborate procedure on how an Army officer can be picked up by the civil police. However, here Purohit was taken away secretly on the pretext of Pune case and handed over to the ATS, where he was illegally detained and tortured by ATS officers while Army did not know about his whereabouts. All this was done only to gain some time, so that in the meantime ATS could falsely plant the RDX and create the evidence against him," claimed Shivde.
Shivde had also alleged that the sanction given by Maharashtra government for prosecuting Purohit had not followed laid down procedures. According to Shivde, an independent sanctioning authority had not been in existence when the sanction was granted.
Patil said that the authority had been created after the sanction was granted, however, the authorities orders had retrospective effect. He added , "However, these are issues that can be decided at the time of trial and not at a prima facie stage when the bail is being granted."
While opposing Purohit's bail, Patil added that the seriousness of the offence has to be seen where it is not just the sections of Indian Penal Code that have been invoked against him but also Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and Explosives Act.
The arguments in the case will go on Friday as well.
Also read: Bombay HC gives interim custody of 9-month-old to couple who 'bought' the baby