2008 Malegaon blast: Accused objects to in-camera trial

Sameer Kulkarni, one of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, opposed the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) plea to have an in-camera trial and said that

Sameer Kulkarni, one of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, opposed the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) plea to have an in-camera trial and said that the names and identities of the key witnesses whose statements were recorded before the magistrate, was already revealed in 2009.

HT Image

The NIA had pleaded for an in-camera trial of the accused, citing witness protection, communal harmony, national security and public order, as well as the sensitive nature of the case, as the primary reasons.

The prosecution claimed that the witnesses may face danger if the identity is revealed in public. NIA has also sought the protection of several witnesses, citing danger to their life and sensitivity of the case.

Objecting NIA’s plea, Kulkarni pointed out that in January 2009, the prosecution – the Anti Terrorism Squad – had moved an application for the distribution of copies of confession statements of the accused and statements of 13 witnesses, which were recorded before the magistrate court. These 13 witnesses are key to the allegations made by the prosecution, which stated that the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy to carry out blast in a “Muslim-populated area”.

Kulkarni pointed out that the names of all the witnesses were mentioned in this particular application and also found their mention in the order passed subsequently by the special judge. Kulkarni further pointed out that he had obtained certified copies of these documents which are not truncated.

He also pointed out that before the court framed charges, the accused had sought copies of electronic evidence – audio and videos of the alleged meetings where the conspiracy was hatched as well as interceptions of telephonic conversations.

Kulkarni pointed out that in the charge sheet, the records and transcripts are truncated, but in video and audio they are not.

He argued that even after these records were made available, there is no statement from any witness, alleging that they were harassed or subjected to any force either by the accused or by the media.