Malegaon blast case: Bombay HC grants bail to Pragya Thakur, rejects plea of Lt Col Purohit

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, accused of plotting the September 2008 Malegaon blast, but rejected the bail plea of co-accused former Lt Col Prasad Purohit saying the charges against him were of grave nature.

The court said prima facie no case was made out against 44-year-old Sadhvi Pragya, who was arrested nine years ago, and asked her to furnish a cash surety of Rs five lakh and surrender her passport to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

"Prima facie there is no case made out against Sadhvi. But there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made against Purohit are prima facie true," a division bench of Justices Ranjit More and Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi said. It also directed her not to tamper with the evidence and to report to the NIA court as and when required.

Six persons were killed and nearly 100 others injured when a bomb strapped to a motorcycle had exploded in Malegaon town of Nashik district on September 29, 2008. Sadhvi Pragya and 44-year-old Purohit were arrested in 2008. While Sadhvi Pragya, who is suffering from cancer, is undergoing treatment a Madhya Pradesh hospital, Purohit is lodged in Taloja jail in Maharashtra.

The NIA, which was handed over the probe from ATS, had given a clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya and told the high court that it had no objection if she was released on bail. The agency had, however, opposed Purohit's bail plea.

"In our considered opinion, if both the reports of ATS and NIA are considered conjointly, so far as Sadhvi is concerned, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations made against her are prima facie true," the judges observed.

"Once it is held so, then the benefit of bail cannot be withheld to the appellant, even if the offences alleged against her by ATS are grave and serious ones," they said.

The court, in their 78-page order on Sadhvi's plea, said the accused is a woman who is languishing in jail since 2008 and is suffering from cancer. While rejecting Purohit's plea, the court said, "In our considered opinion, there is, prima facie, more than sufficient material on record against Purohit so as to hold that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations made against him are prima facie true." The bench noted that the charges levelled against Purohit are of serious and grave nature.

"It is of waging war against the integrity and unity of the state and, that too, by violent means like exploding the bomb, so as to create terror in the minds of the people," the judges said.

Referring to the report (charge sheet) filed by the NIA, they said, "Purohit was the one who prepared a separate 'Constitution' for 'Hindu Rashtra' with a separate saffron colour flag. He also discussed about taking revenge for the atrocities committed by the Muslims on Hindus." The HC refused to accept Purohit's contention that he had attended the meetings as part of a "covert military intelligence operation."

The court pointed out the statements of the witnesses that it was Purohit, who said their right-wing group Abhinav Bharat should not be just a political party but should work as an organisation of extremists, having the capacity to eliminate persons opposing the same.

"If Purohit's contention that he used to attend the meetings merely as a part of his duty while working as a 'Military Intelligence Officer' is to be accepted then there was no reason for him to express such views to the witness," the judges said in their 118-page order on Purohit's plea.

On Sadhvi's plea, the HC noted that several witnesses, who had initially told the ATS that they attended the meetings in Bhopal where the blast conspiracy was hatched by Purohit and Sadhvi, later retracted their statements. The witnesses alleged that they were tortured by the ATS to give false statements, observed the court.

"Two witnesses, who have not yet retracted their statements recorded by the ATS, do not disclose any objectionable and incriminating material against the appellant (Sadhvi)," the judges said.

The court further held that although the motorcycle, which was used in the blast, was registered in Sadhvi's name, the same was in possession of absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra since two years prior to the blast.

Welcoming the order, Sadhvi's brother-in-law Bhagwan Jha said the family will celebrate nationwide.

"Finally, we have won. Nine years she was in jail without evidence. Now we will celebrate nationwide," he told reporters outside the court while distributing chocolates.

Sadhvi Pragya's lawyer said, "There were two allegations against her. One was that her scooter was used in the blast, although there was evidence that the scooter was sold off in 2004 and the blast happened in 2008. The second allegation was that she was part of two meetings in Bhopal and Faridabad. In the Faridabad meeting, the entire conspiracy of Malegaon blast was planned. However there was no evidence of her participating in the meeting, and there was no such conspiracy in the Bhopal meeting. Barring that there was nothing absolutely against her," the lawyer said.

Sadhvi Pragya and Purohit had filed appeals in the HC against an earlier order of a special court rejecting their bail pleas. 

The families of the victims, who had filed an intervening application challenging Sadhvi Pragya's bail plea, on Tuesday sought from the court a stay on its order so that they can appeal against it in the Supreme Court. The high court, however, refused to stay its order.

According to the investigating agencies, the blast was allegedly carried out by right-wing group Abhinav Bharat.

In her appeal, Sadhvi Pragya argued that the lower court failed to take cognisance of the change in circumstances in her case considering that NIA had declared in its charge sheet that it had not found any evidence against her and that prosecution against her be dropped. The NIA had opposed Purohit's bail plea and argued there was evidence in the form of audio and video recordings, call data records and the statements of the witnesses which prove his involvement in the case. According to 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.