By A Mirsab, TwoCirlces.net,
Mumbai: Not considering submission of National Investigation Agency (NIA) as sufficient to decide the bail application of prime accuse Col Shrikant Purohit in Malegaon 2008 blasts case, a special NIA court here allowed one of the victim to oppose the bail and present the law points as well as factual aspects of the witness statements.
On August 23, special Judge S D Tikale allowed intervention application filed by Nisar Ahmed,64 whose son Sayyed Azhar had died after the bomb explosion on September 29, 2008 at Bhikku Chowk, Malegaon. Six persons were killed and more than 100 persons were injured in the blasts.
While filing its supplementary charge sheet after five years of investigation, NIA on May 13, 2016 revoked MCOCA from the case and provided clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur , Shiv Narayan Kalsangra, Shyam Bhavarlal Sahu, Praveen Takkalki, Lokesh Sharma and Dhan Singh Choudhury. These were earlier made accused in the case by Maharashtra ATS that had initially investigated the case.
As ATS did not oppose NIA’s charge sheet before court, Ahmed decided to oppose bail of accuse persons and hence filed intervention application. This application was strongly opposed by Purohit as well as NIA arguing that when Public prosecutor was presenting the case there was no need of intervention by victim and that he has no knowledge of investigation of the case.
On the contrary, Ahmed argued that he was the aggrieved party and due to the changed circumstances where NIA dropped stringent MCOCA charges against accused and exonerated some accused from the case, it was important to bring to the notice of court the aspect of previous investigation which was on record and submitted by Maharashtra ATS.
After detailed argument, judge allowed Ahmed for oral argument on the bail application and said, “On this background, certainly, learned Special Public Prosecutor while making submissions on Bail Application has considered the statements recorded by Investigating Officer of N.I.A. only,” adding further, “In this circumstance, opportunity must be given to the aggrieved person to submit on the law points as well as factual aspects in respect of the statements of such witnesses recorded by A.T.S. Maharashtra, otherwise, if statements of N.I.A. are only considered, prosecution may fail.”
Ahmed had earlier intervened during bail hearing of Sadhvi Pragya Thakur before session court and succeeded in getting it rejected even though NIA was not opposing her bail. Ahmed had also petitioned court seeking notice to be sent to the ATS so that it can be given an opportunity to be heard, however, that was rejected by court observing, “If really ATS feels aggrieved by the observations made in the chargesheet, it is for ATS to take appropriate steps permissible in law.”
Interestingly, even after four months that NIA submitted supplementary charge sheet and called the ATS probe in the case ‘dubious’, ‘questionable’ and filled with ‘lacuna’, but ATS has objected to NIA claim till date.