Malegaon blast accused Purohit moves SC for bail

Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, the prime accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast, moved the Supreme Court on Friday, barely days after the Bombay High Court rejected his bail application.

Purohit's advocate Neela Gokhale mentioned the matter before the bench led by the Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and sought a date for Monday. The bench, however, advised Gokhale to go through the process and the matter would be taken up in due course of time.

On April 25, the Bombay High Court denied Purohit bail while granting it to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur for the lack of "incriminating or objectionable material" against her. Referring to a NIA report, the HC had said, "Purohit was the one who prepared a separate 'Constitution' for 'Hindu Rashtra' with a separate saffron colour flag. He also discussed taking revenge for the atrocities committed by the Muslims on Hindus."

Purohit and Thakur were arrested in 2008 on conspiracy charges pertaining to the 2008 Malegaon blast.

In his petition, Purohit claims that he is an upright intelligence officer who successfully infiltrated SIMI and ISI to extract information. His efforts, he claims has reaped awards from the powers that be. "In fact at the time of the incident, he was undergoing a course of Arabic language at Panchmarhi, Madhya Pradesh. Thus considering his background and the manner in which he was arrested, it is crystal clear that invocation of unlawful activities prevention act and MCOCA and Section 120-B r/w other offences of IPC is clearly malafide and a deep rooted political conspiracy of which the Petitioner is a victim."

According to Purohit, "It is a specific case of the Petitioner that his presence in some meetings, alleged to be conspiracy, has been reported by him to his superiors and was in the course of gathering intelligence." Purohit further contended, "that most of the co-accused were registered sources of the Indian Army and part of the information intelligence network developed by the Petitioner."

In the petition Gokhale submitted that the High Court erred in refusing to take into account the documents of the Court of Enquiry conducted in respect of the Petitioner, which documents have also been referred in the charge sheet filed by the NIA. The HC's reasoning while denying bail under section 43 (D) of UAP Act (prima facie case has to be tested only on the basis of the case diary and the report of the IO) - a provision introduced by the amendment act after the incident, gave a retrospective effect in this matter.

"The High Court has also failed to appreciate that there was no due procedure followed while purportedly obtaining sanction for prosecution under the UAP Act and rules there under," the petition read. "The High Court has granted bail to accused no.1 Pragya Singh Thakur taking into account the changed circumstances in the chargesheet filed by the NIA which is contrary to the one filed by the ATS on certain issues, however has not applied the same parameters to the present Petitioner."

Two explosions on September 29, 2008, in Malegaon, Maharashtra, had killed at least six people and injured several others. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had filed a chargesheet against 14 right-wing extremists, including Purohit and Thakur, in the case. However, in a separate chargesheet filed by the NIA -- who took over the case from the ATS, 44-year-old Thakur was given a clean chit.

Since his arrest in 2008, Purohit has now spent more than eight years behind bars in Maharashtra's Taloja jail. According to the investigating agencies, right-wing group Abhinav Bharat allegedly orchestrated the blast. The NIA had opposed Purohit's bail plea submitting that there was electronic evidence, call data records and witness statements which proved his involvement in the case.

According to the NIA, Purohit had allegedly taken active part in the conspiracy meetings and even agreed to arrange explosives to be used in the blast. Purohit had argued that the NIA was "selective" in exonerating some accused persons and that the agency made him a "scapegoat" in the case.