By TwoCircles.net Staff Reporter,
Mumbai: The genuineness of National Investigation Agency (NIA) in probing and prosecuting Hindu extremists in various blasts is now under public scanner after the explosive revelation by public prosecutor Rohini Salian that she was asked by NIA officer to go ‘soft’ in the proceedings of Malegaon 2008 blasts that is blamed on Hindu extremists.
In an interview to an English Daily Indian Express on Thursday Salian alleged that the behaviour of NIA changed after the new regime came to power in the centre and she was told it does not matter even if the agency receives unfavourable orders.
Advocate Rohini Salian (Courtesy: Dnaindia)As a response to the allegations levelled against it, NIA rejected Salian’s allegations and said that she was about to be removed as PP and that the process of her “de-notification” was underway when she went public with her accusations against the agency.
Rebuffing the charge that it pressured Salian into going soft on the Malegaon case, the agency also said that the question of influencing Salian does not arise as special PP’s role comes only after a case is committed to trial and the case has as yet not reached the trial stage.
The explanation provided by NIA lacks the substance and credibility to convince firstly because Salian is an experienced and well known public prosecutor specially nominated by state to look after terrorism related cases.
Secondly because NIA’s claim that her role comes only after trial commences and trial has not begun is untrue. Salian is representing the state ever since the arresting of nine Hindu extremists in the case by then slain ATS chief Hemant Karkare.
As a first duty in the case she argued before court in October-November 2008 to get police custody of Pragya Singh Thakur, col. Purohit and others. Subsequently, in last 6-7 years she opposed or presented state’s objection to all the applications brought in by accused persons.
She argued for state before Bombay High Court in 2010 for turning down special court’s ruling of revocation of MCOCA from the case. It was her attempt that High Court held MCOCA applicable in the case.
She opposed all the bail applications filed by accused in the case before special court as well as Bombay High Court. Thakur herself filed various bail applications on different grounds and all the time Salian opposed her bail on the basis of legal and merit of the case.
Salian even used to appear for every hearing of the case when accused were brought to court although the trial proceedings were stayed by Supreme Court in the wake of MCOCA applicability appeal filed there by accused.
She would argue against several miscellaneous applications that were filed by the accused before special court on every hearing date. Was not this the role that was efficiently performed by Salian till now?
No reason for replacing Salian
In Maharashtra there are three senior most public prosecutors who are representing state in many terror cases viz. Ujwal Nikam, Raja Thakarey and Rohini Salian.
Thakarey is already busy in various cases including the highlighted cases of 7/11 train bombings, 13/7 serial blasts, German Bakery appeal, JM Road Pune blasts and IM threat email.
Nikam is busy in 1993 blast case and appeals arising out of the case along with some more other cases state specifically asked him to appear for.
Never has such thing happened before that a senior most PP of the calibre is ever asked to step down from the case. Thakarey was over burdened with many terror cases so he himself requested to be removed from Aurangabad arms haul case and was replaced.
But in this matter when Salian was competently performing her duty in the Malegaon blast case then there was no need of her replacement, also because she had not herself asked for relieving from the case.
Therefore her abrupt replacement from the case itself shows that there is something fishy about the ‘going soft’ allegations raised by her.