Phalgun Shukla paksha 7, Kaliyug Varsh 5116
New Delhi : The National Investigating Agency (NIA) will seek custody of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt. Col. Purohit, the two accused in the Malegaon blasts case of 2008.
The NIA has decided to oppose the bail sought by both the accused while seeking their custody. On September 29 2008, three bombs exploded at Malegaon in Maharashtra killing seven pesons and injuring several others.
The bail plea of the accused is being heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday and the NIA had in the previous hearing too made it clear that it would oppose the bail plea. ” We are opposing the bail plea as we want further custody of the accused, A Mariaputham, counsel for the NIA had told the Supreme Court.
Delay not a ground to seek bail in this case :
The NIA argues that the delay in the commencement of the trial cannot be a ground in this case to seek bail. Both Sadhvi and Purohit had argued that they have been lodged in jail for six years and there was an inordinate delay in the commencement of the trial. This makes out a ground to grant bail the accused had argued in their bail plea.
However, the NIA argues that the delay is not because of them. The 2008 Malegaon case was initially being handled by the Maharashtra ATS. However it was transferred to the NIA and this caused the delay. Moreover the NIA has only managed to question the accused once, it was also submitted.
The NIA says that they would want to question the accused once again and hence they ought to be granted custody of the two accused in the interest of investigating the case.
The Malegaon blasts of 2008 :
On September 29, 2008, three blasts ripped through Malegaon in Maharashtra killing seven persons. At first a Muslim outfit was blamed for the attack. However the Maharashtra ATS later concluded that the Muslim outfit was wrongly implicated and it was the handiwork of a group of Hindus which had carried out the blasts.
It was alleged that Sadhvi Pragya Singh was one of the conspirators in this attack. It was further alleged that Lt Col. Purohit had supplied RDX to the accused. Purohit however disputed the claim stating he was wrongly implicated. I was doing my job as a military intelligence officer and try to bust a terror network and this was misunderstood which led to my arrest, Purohit contended.
Source : One India
