Malegaon blast accused Lt-Col Shrikant Purohit moves SC against Bombay High Court's rejection of bail plea

Barely three days after the Bombay High Court granted bail to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case and turned down the bail plea of Lieutenant-Colonel Shrikant Purohit, the former army officer has taken his case to the Supreme Court

FP Staff April 28, 2017 11:13:49 IST
Malegaon blast accused Lt-Col Shrikant Purohit moves SC against Bombay High Court's rejection of bail plea

New Delhi: Malegaon blast accused Shrikant Purohit moved the Supreme Court, on Friday, against the Bombay High Court order rejecting his bail plea in the case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar said that the petition will come up in regular course while rejecting the former lieutenant colonel's plea for an urgent hearing.

The Bombay High Court had on 25 April granted bail to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, accused of plotting the September 2008 Malegaon blast, but rejected the bail plea of co-accused Purohit saying the charges against him were of grave nature.

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 29 September, 2008.

Sadhvi Pragya and 44-year-old Purohit were arrested in 2008.

While Sadhvi Pragya, 44, who is suffering from cancer, is undergoing treatment a Madhya Pradesh hospital, Purohit is lodged in Taloja jail in Maharashtra.

The High Court had said that prima facie no case was made out against Pragya and asked her to furnish a cash surety of Rs five lakh and surrender her passport to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The NIA, which was handed over the probe from ATS, had given a clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya but had opposed Purohit's bail plea noting that the charges levelled against Purohit are of serious and grave nature.

Referring to the report filed by the NIA, 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 about taking revenge for the atrocities committed by the Muslims on Hindus."

The HC had 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.

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

The NIA had opposed Purohit's bail plea and argued that 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 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.

With inputs from PTI

Updated Date:

also read

SC slams Centre for 'cherry-picking' names for tribunals, directs govt to make appointments in two weeks
India

SC slams Centre for 'cherry-picking' names for tribunals, directs govt to make appointments in two weeks

There are around 250 posts lying vacant in various key tribunals and appellate tribunals

Bombay HC quashes cheating cases against Sahil Khan filed by Ayesha Shroff
Entertainment

Bombay HC quashes cheating cases against Sahil Khan filed by Ayesha Shroff

The Bombay HC quashed the two FIRs after Sahil Khan's lawyer and Ayesha Shroff told the court that they had settled the dispute between them amicably

Health ministry, ICMR have issued guidelines for 'official document' for Covid deaths: Centre to SC
India

Health ministry, ICMR have issued guidelines for 'official document' for Covid deaths: Centre to SC

According to the guidelines, those COVID-19 cases would be considered which have been diagnosed through RT-PCR test, molecular test, rapid-antigen test or clinically determined through investigations at a hospital or in-patient facility by a treating physician