Three years after the CBI took over the probe in the September 2006 Malegaon blast case, the agency informed the Bombay high court that it did not have evidence against the accused.
Three years after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the probe in the September 2006 Malegaon blast case, the agency informed the Bombay high court that it did not have evidence against the accused.
Representing the CBI, advocate DN Salvi informed the high court on Monday that the charge sheet or report in the case was not filed (in the special MCOCA court) as there was no evidence against the nine people who were arrested.
The division bench of justice JN Patel and Amjad Sayed has now asked the highest ranking officer of the CBI and the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) to file a detailed affidavit explaining their stand within two weeks.
“Whether you [CBI] had evidence or not, you were bound to file a report in the case before the special court. The CBI cannot claim such privilege. The CBI is expected to file a report before the magistrate, or the special court, if they find no case is made out,” said Patel.
The development came after Abrar Ahmed Sayyed, 33, the sole approver in the case, had turned hostile before the special court. Sayyed had filed an affidavit in the special court naming ATS officers who had allegedly induced him to “confessing” the crime he never committed.
Following Abrar’s affidavit, three accused in the case — Nooruludha Samsudoha, Shabbir Ahmed and Mohammed Jahid Abdul Majeed Ansari — moved the high court seeking that a special investigation team (SIT) be set up to probe Abrar’s statement.
“According to Abrar’s affidavit, the 2006 and September 2008 blasts in Malegaon were carried out by the same accused who were arrested after the second blast,” argued advocate Amin Solkar, representing the petitioners.
The petitioners also pointed out that the government handed over the probe to the CBI on December 22, 2006. Despite that the ATS filed the charge sheet in the case a day later.
Representing the state, public prosecutor Pandurang Pol, said that the ATS had filed the charge sheet on December 22 itself and the case was handed over to the CBI later in
the day.
The court has now directed the state government to explain why the case was handed over the CBI and also about the anomaly in the date of handing over the probe and filing of charge sheet by the ATS.
){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}
){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}