New Delhi: The Supreme Court today directed a special court in Maharashtra to decide within a month the bail pleas of various accused persons, including Lt Col S P Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
The court said that barring accused Rakesh D Dhawade, who is alleged to be involved in other similar cases in Parbhani and Jalna before the Malegaon blast, the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) would not be considered while dealing with the bail applications of other accused persons.
It said there were “considerable doubts” about the involvement of other accused in Parbhani and Jalna blasts cases and “therefore, they are entitled for their bail applications to be considered on merits.” The apex court also asked the special court to commence trial at the earliest and conclude it expeditiously noting that the matter pertains to 2008 and nearly seven years have passed.
“We direct the prosecuting agency to ensure that the necessary evidence i.e. oral, documentary as well as other form of evidence placed before the court to enable the special court to commence the trial early and conclude the same expeditiously,” a bench of justices F M I Kalifulla and Abhay Manohar Sapre said in its 97-page judgement.
While dealing with the issue of MCOCA which was dropped by the trial court in Nasik but restored by the Bombay High Court, the apex court bench said “We have held that the said appellant (Dhawade) had every nexus with all the three crimes, namely, Parbhani, Jalna and Malegaon and, therefore, the bar for grant of bail under Section 21 would clearly operate against him and there is no scope for granting any bail.”
“Insofar as the rest of the appellants are concerned, for the purpose of invoking Section 21(4)(b), namely, to consider their claim for bail, it can be held that for the present juncture with the available materials on record, it is not possible to show any nexus of the appellants who have been proceeded against for their involvement in Malegaon blast with the two earlier cases, namely, Parbhani and Jalna,” it said.
Regarding Dhawade, the bench said, “...there is no scope even for the limited purpose of Section 21(4)(b) to hold that application of MCOCA is doubtful.”
