Bombay HC seeks NIA, ATS chargesheets

The Bombay high court has asked the lawyer of the National Investigation Team (NIA), probing the 2008 Malegaon blast case, to submit the trial court’s previous order copies relating to the bail of accused Sadhvi Pragya Singh, including both the chargesheets that were filed by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and NIA in the trial court.

A division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice Prakash Naik was hearing a bail appeal filed by Sadhvi Pragya Singh. The appeal stated that NIA in their chargesheet had given a clean chit to Singh and so she must be released on bail.

Earlier, in the month of June 2016, a special NIA court had rejected Singh’s bail application, saying there was prima facie evidence against her.

While rejecting the bail application, the NIA Court said the NIA had re-examined the witnesses whose names were already present in the ATS chargesheet. The court also refused NIA’s contention that there was no direct evidence against Singh to prove she was part of a criminal conspiracy.

The court further said if direct evidence was absent, the conspiracy could be proven with the help of circumstantial evidence.

During a hearing on Friday, the high court questioned the NIA that if it was not opposing the bail application of Singh and was claiming there is no direct evidence against the accused, then why was she being still kept in jail

Singh’s lawyer said according to the special NIA court, a contradiction had been perceived in the statements of witnesses recorded in the ATS and NIA chargesheets and so the court would decide the outcome only during the trial and refused the bail application.

The court also sought to know if any existing law would permit it to select one chargesheet, while dismissing the other.

NIA lawyer Sandesh Patil told the court that Singh earlier had been charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.

The Sadhvi’s lawyer told the court that Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) had been already dropped from the case.