2008 Malegaon blast case: Court refuses to let Sadhvi Pragya go despite NIA suggestion

The court, while considering Sadhvi Pragya Thakur’s discharge plea, along with the other accused, took cognisance of chargesheets filed by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the NIA.

The special NIA court that dropped the MCOCA charges against seven accused on Wednesday, refused to discharge Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur — the first person to be arrested in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.

The court held that statements given by various witnesses about the role played by Sadhvi Pragya Thakur cannot be discarded at this stage. (HT File Photo)

The NIA had recommended dropping the charges against her.

The court, while considering Sadhvi’s discharge plea, along with the other accused, took cognisance of chargesheets filed by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the NIA. The court observed that, “the investigation report filed by the NIA, (which suggested dropping charges against Sadhvi), has not wiped out, directly or impliedly the initial investigation concluded by the ATS. The investigation report filed by ATS is also required to be considered along with the report of NIA.”

While refusing to discharge Sadhvi, he court observed that “Thakur had knowledge about the involvement of her motorcycle in the blast and her dissatisfaction about causing less casualties. Hence it is difficult to accept the submission that she had no concern with the present crime as she had been exonerated by the NIA.”

The Maharashtra ATS had booked Sadhvi alleging that she was key conspirator behind the blast. The prosecution for the court case alleged that after several meetings held between the members of the right-wing organisation Abhinav Bharat, Sadhvi and others accused, had conspired to carry out the blast. The agency claimed that explosives were obtained with the help of Lt Col Prasad Purohit and the bomb was planted in a motor cycle once used by Sadhvi.

However, during the NIA’s investigation, witnesses who allegedly revealed Sadhvi’s role, retracted their statements. The central agency claimed that there was no sufficient evidence to prosecute Sadhvi in the case.

However, the court has held that the statement given by various witnesses about role played by Sadhvi cannot be discarded at this stage.