Malegaon blast case: Lt Col Purohit moves SC against order rejecting his bail | india-news | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 24, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Malegaon blast case: Lt Col Purohit moves SC against order rejecting his bail

The Bombay HC had rejected the bail plea of Lt Col Srikant Purohit saying the charges against him were of a grave nature.

india Updated: Apr 28, 2017 12:59 IST
Lt Col Purohit is one of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast.
Lt Col Purohit is one of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast. (File Photo)

Malegaon blast accused Shrikant Purohit on Friday moved the Supreme Court 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 HC had on April 25 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 people 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, 44, who is suffering from cancer, is undergoing treatment at a Madhya Pradesh hospital, Purohit is lodged in Taloja jail in Maharashtra.

The HC had said that prima facie, no case was made out against Pragya and asked her to furnish a cash surety of Rs 5 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 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 people 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 that 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.