The court reserved its verdict on appeal filed by Purohit challenging the HC order rejecting his bail plea.The court reserved its verdict on appeal filed by Purohit challenging the HC order rejecting his bail plea.
NEW DELHI: Seeking bail in the 2008 Malegaon blast, Lt Col Shrikant Purohit told the Supreme Court that he was caught in a “political crossfire” and was falsely implicated but the NIA opposed his plea, accusing him of running Abhinav Bharat, an organization promoting fundamentalism.

Appearing before a bench of Justices R K Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, Purohit’s counsel Harish Salve contended that the officer attended meetings of Abhinav Bharat as an “Army mole” and was not involved in terrorist activities. He said there were big “holes” in the investigation conducted in the case, which is why another accused Pragya Singh Thakur was granted bail. “My client has got himself caught in a political crossfire. He has been in jail for nine years but charges have not been framed so far. He is still serving in the Army as he has not been removed. Since 2001, he has got numerous recommendations (for his work as an intelligence officer),” Salve contended.

He said Purohit, acting as a military intelligence officer, had informed his seniors about his activities and meetings of Abhinav Bharat and there are serious infirmities in the probe conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) and NIA. The probe was initially carried out by the ATS before NIA took over in 2011.

Additional solicitor general Maninder Singh, appearing for NIA, opposed his bail plea and said there was no error in the high court’s verdict refusing to enlarge him on bail. He said there were some inconsistencies in the ATS probe, but enough evidence to frame charges against Purohit. In its response, the NIA said Purohit founded Abhinav Bharat despite being a commissioned officer in the Army and collected huge funds that were used for promoting “fundamentalism”. The agency said it had got recordings of various meetings of the organization in which Purohit “discussed the idea of having a separate Constitution and formation of Hindu Rashtra with a separate flag”.

“He also discussed taking revenge for atrocities by Muslims on Hindus. It was observed in retaliation to the atrocities committed on Hindus, bombs must be exploded to target that community. A voice sample of the petitioner was also confirmed by a forensic report. There are several incriminating circumstances against him that prove his deep involvement,” the agency said in its written response.

Senior advocate Amrendra Sharan, appearing for one of the blast victims’ family, told the bench Purohit would try to tamper with evidence if allowed to come out of jail.

The court reserved its verdict on appeal filed by Purohit challenging the HC order rejecting his bail

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/purohit-founded-radical-outfit-collected-funds-nia/articleshow/60109638.cms