NIA admits discrepancy in Malegaon blast case but opposes bail to Lt Col Purohit

The National Investigation Agency on Thursday admitted before the Supreme Court that there have been “several inconsistencies” in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case. But it opposed bail plea by accused Lt Col Srikant Prasad Purohit, saying these things, including retractions of witnesses, could be examined during the trial only.
 
Purohit, for his part, claimed, “he was caught in political crossfire”. He cited factors like the serious indictment of Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad by the NIA, no framing of charges despite his nine years of incarceration and no inquiry report by the Indian Army against him, to seek bail.
 
A bench of Justices R K Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre noted that the NIA in its report had claimed ATS had planted explosive substance RDX to frame Purohit. The court reserved its verdict on the special leave petition filed by Purohit, after hearing arguments from his counsel senior advocate Harish Salve, NIA counsel Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh and senior advocate Amrendra Sharan, representing one of the victims.
 
Making his case, Salve challenged the Bombay High Court order of April that refused relief to him but enlarged co-accused Pragya Singh Thakur. Purohit, a Military Intelligence officer, is accused in the case relating to a bomb blast on September 29, 2008, at Malegaon, a communally-sensitive textile town in Nasik district of north Maharashtra. The explosion had claimed lives of six people and left over 100 other injured.
 
“The case against my client is that he attended meetings of 'Abhinav Bharat'. My boss in Army acceded to during his cross examination in Court of Inquiry that he was giving vital information to him. Nine years have gone by, no inquiry report has come. He is still serving as Army officer and has so far not been removed,” Salve said.
 
The High Court, however, declined to consider it, saying these factors could be examined during the trial. “His defence is that he was asked to attend meetings of certain organisations. In 2006 Nasik Police Commissioner commended him for his work,” Salve said. He said the NIA had found how ATS used “dubious” ways to make out a case against him. Salve also pointed out it was the Supreme Court which held that no case for stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act could be slapped against the petitioner.
 
“After nine years of incarceration, give me at least interim bail till the trial court considers for framing of charges,” Salve submitted. He said if charges pertaining to RDX had gone, the remaining accusation is related to being a member of banned 'Abhinav Bharat' for which the maximum punishment is seven years jail only, he said.
 
Singh, however, maintained there were sufficient materials to frame charges against Purohit. However, he admitted, “I cannot run away from inconsistencies in the case”.