Supreme Court spots loopholes in chargesheets against Malegaon blast accused Lt Col Purohit

Granting bail to Lt Col Shrikant Purohit after he spent nine years in jail, the Supreme Court on Monday observed there were contradictions in the charge sheets filed by different investigating agencies in connection with the 2008 Malegaon blasts case. Significantly, the bench headed by justice R K Agrawal said it is also to be noted that an "accused cannot be denied relief merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused".

The bench however directed Purohit to take prior permission of the trial court for going abroad. He has been asked to surrender his passport to the court.

The apex court said there were material contradictions in the charge sheets filed by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Mumbai and the National Investigating Agency (NIA), which are required to be tested at the time of trial, and it cannot pick or choose one version over the other.

A bench of justices R K Agrawal and Abhay Mohan Sapre, while taking note of variations in the charge sheets filed by Mumbai ATS and NIA, said "Fresh ground for consideration of Purohit's bail plea was made out, as at the relevant time, he was an intelligence officer of the Indian Army". It said Purohit has refuted the claim of conspiracy on the ground that he had informed to his senior officers about the intelligence inputs of meetings attended by him at the Abhinav Bharat, a right-wing Hindu extremist outfit, and alleged role of ATS officials in the planting of RDX explosive substance at the residence of a co-accused.

Keeping in view that NIA had submitted a supplementary charge sheet, which was at variance with the one filed by the ATS, the trial was likely to take a long time and the appellant had been in prison for about eight years and eight months, the bench was of the considered view that appellant Purohit had made out a prima facie case for release on bail and deemed it appropriate to enlarge him on bail. "Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important, but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational rights of the agency. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the agency to investigate the case", the bench said.

Also read: Malegaon blast case: Lt Col Purohit infiltrated into ISI, SIMI camps, says his lawyer

Also read: Malegaon blast accused Lt Col Purohit to be attached to Army unit, remains suspended