HC rejects discharge plea of Lt Col Purohit in Malegaon bomb blasts

Purohit in his defence had claimed that he was discharging his duty as an officer of the army and was not involved in any conspiracy. However, the HC said that Purohit was not discharging his duty while he attended the alleged meetings of the group Abhinav Bharat

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Monday dismissed the plea filed by Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit seeking discharge from the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. Purohit, who was then serving as an officer of the Indian army, was apprehended by the anti-terrorism squad as the main conspirator who allegedly planned the blast that left six dead and 101 injured.

Navi Mumbai: Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court on Monday in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, being taken to the Sessions Court from Taloja Jail in Navi Mumbai on Tuesday. PTI Photo (PTI8_22_2017_000142B) (PTI)

Purohit in his defence had claimed that he was discharging his duty as an officer of the army and was not involved in any conspiracy. However, the HC said that Purohit was not discharging his duty while he attended the alleged meetings of the group Abhinav Bharat, during which the conspiracy for the Malegaon blast was hatched as claimed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). It added that the alleged offences of murder and criminal conspiracy were not connected to the discharge of his official duty, and hence his objection to his prosecution without sanction from the relevant authorities was not valid.

“Purohit was never granted permission by the government to float the Abhinav Bharat organisation in spite of being a serving commissioned officer of the armed forces of India,” noted the bench in its order. It added that Purohit was neither directed to collect funds for Abhinav Bharat and to disburse the same for procurement of weapons and explosives.

The division bench of Justice Ajey Gadkari and Justice Prakash Deu Naik had reserved its verdict in Purohit’s 2018 appeal challenging the December 2017 order of the special NIA court rejecting his discharge plea. It pronounced its order on Monday.

Upholding arguments advanced by NIA counsel Sandesh Patil that Purohit was the “key conspirator”, the HC said “he had actively participated and organised and conducted various meetings with the co-accused in furtherance of their common object of the criminal conspiracy to commit unlawful activities”.

During arguments, advocate Neela Gokhale representing Purohit had submitted that the NIA itself had claimed that Purohit was informing his superiors about attending the meetings to strengthen his information-gathering network. However, advocate Sandesh Patil, representing NIA, said the documents that Purohit referred to in order to support his case did not belong to the central agency but were from a Court of Inquiry held by the army, and were not admissible before the HC.

Gokhale also told the HC that the NIA had to get prior sanction from the government to prosecute Purohit under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). She added that as NIA had so far produced over 280 witnesses before the trial court, Purohit could be discharged.

The HC questioned the failure of Purohit to avert the bomb blast in the civilian locality of Malegaon. “Even otherwise, indulging in the activity of a bomb explosion, causing the death of six persons, is not an act done by the appellant in his official duty,” it added.

The HC said that the offences of criminal conspiracy and murder under the IPC and UAPA against Purohit had nothing to do with the discharge of his official duty and were “totally unconnected”. It also said that there was “no question at all of according sanction under Section 197 of CrPC to prosecute” Purohit and that the “trial court did not commit an error”.