Second ground was that, there was a delay in the trial, thus he is entitled for bail. Third ground was, that he was in an illegal detention between October 29, 2008 and November 5, 2008, he was illegally detained.
The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on Monday rejected the bail of lt. col. Prasad Purohit on the grounds that the evidence cited by the accused, will have to be proved under the Indian Evidence Act, and thus, it will be considered only at the time of the trial. Purohit, is an accused in the Malegaon 2008 blast case.
Purohit had cited number of grounds for seeking bail. His application claimed that a trust named -- Abhinav Bharat Trust, which the NIA claimed was used by the accused to get the required weapons and explosives for the blast, was done only after keeping his senior army officers in the loop.
Second ground was that, there was a delay in the trial, thus he is entitled for bail. Third ground was, that he was in an illegal detention between October 29, 2008 and November 5, 2008, he was illegally detained.
Purohit had said, that as per the record on November 5, 2008, he was arrested by the ATS by obtaining his custody from the Indian army. He further claimed that, he was in fact abducted by one colonel Srivastav from Bhopal, and was brought to Mumbai with the help of forged movement order, and was kept in an unknown place. Purohit alleged that Srivastav had joined hands with the ATS and illegally detained him.
The court presided over by judge SD Tekale, gave a detailed order on each of the grounds cited by the accused.
On the ground of delay, the court held that, the matter has already been expedited by the Supreme Court. "A special court had been appointed to conduct the trial, and the arguments on the point of framing of charges had been concluded. Considering all these facts, as well as peculiar circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with restrictions imposed by provisions of the UAPA Act, he was not entitled to be granted bail on this ground," said the judge.
On the grounds of illegal detention, the court was of the view, that a similar ground for bail was filed by a co-accused named Sameer Kulkarni in this case before the Bombay High court, but the court rejected it. "It is held by the honourable lordships that Kulkarni is not entitled to be released on the ground that he was illegally detained. The said ratio is applicable in this matter also," said the special NIA court.
The court also held that the point of the validity of sanction to apply the UAPA in the case, would be decided at the time of the trial.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Malegaon")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}