Bombay HC asks for fortnightly report from NIA court on Malegaon trial

Petitioner says the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace and relevant witnesses are yet to be examined

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday called for a fortnightly report from the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court conducting the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast trial.

Malegaon is a city in the Nashik district in Maharashtra, where a bomb exploded on September 28, 2008, killing six and injuring over 100. The accused in the case are Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, Sameer Kulkarni, Ramesh Upadhyay, and Sudhakar Chaturvedi.

A Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and V.G. Bisht was hearing a petition filed by Mr. Kulkarni alleging that the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace and relevant witnesses are yet to be examined.

In the previous hearing, the Bench had asked for a report from the special court, which was submitted on Wednesday in a sealed envelope by NIA counsel Sandesh Patil. The report stated that after the transfer of Special Judge P. R. Sitre, the new NIA judge had been appointed on June 6, the trial is taking place on a daily basis, and 12 witnesses have been examined till now.

Commenting on the additional affidavit filed by the Central agency that mentioned 218 witnesses were yet to be examined, Mr. Kulkarni said, “NIA calls for one witness, and when no one turns up, then there is no back-up. The witnesses’ figures are not proper and true and there is discrepancy in the figures submitted to the lower court and in the High Court. The affidavit is filed by a Superintendent who has never opened the charge-sheet. The figures, even otherwise, are proof of their recklessness. If the witness is not present, and the judge doesn’t penalise, how will it look in the society?”

To which the Bench said, “If witness cannot remain present, doesn’t the court issue a warrant? NIA has to ensure that more than one witness remains present. If one witness is arranged for, and for some reason, that witness cannot remain present in court, then what happens? Judicial time is wasted.”

The Bench added, “We will keep the matter after three weeks. We will call for a fortnightly report to examine how the witnesses are being examined. We will also see from the Roznama to see how witnesses are being examined on a day-to-day basis. We will know who is taking time, why is the trial being adjourned, and if a warrant has been issued against witnesses or not.”