Video Editor: Sandeep Suman
Video Producer: Debayan Dutta
Rejecting Lt Col Purohit’s plea for deferring the framing of charges in order to challenge the Bombay HC order in the Supreme Court, the NIA special court framed charges against him and all other accused in the Malegaon blast case on Tuesday, 30 October, under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
All seven accused, including Sadhvi Pragya, have been charged for terror conspiracy, murder and other related offences, according to ANI. After the charges were framed, all seven pleaded not guilty.
Judge Vinod Padalkar, presiding over the special NIA court, framed charges against all the seven accused under sections of the stringent UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
After the framing of charges, the court posted the case on 2 November for the trial to commence. Framing of charges is a process after which the trial in a criminal case starts.
If convicted under these sections, the maximum punishment is life imprisonment or death.
The judge, while reading out the charges against the accused, said, "The Abhinav Bharat organisation was formed with the common object to spread terrorism and a bomb with RDX was planted on a motorcycle in Malegaon that killed six persons and injured 101 others.”
“The accused persons came together to hatch a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act and procured explosives to further their conspiracy,” Padalkar said.
Apart from Purohit and Sadhvi, the accused are Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni.
Purohit told the court that he never expected this and said, "No one can doubt my honesty, integrity and service record."
Pragya, reacting to the charges, said that it was a conspiracy against her and that the truth would prevail.
“Earlier,the NIA had given me a clean chit. Now, charges have been framed against me. This was a conspiracy by Congress but I am confident that I'll come out innocent as the truth always wins,” she said.
Purohit's lawyer had earlier filed an application seeking an adjournment of the framing of charges against him.
The Bombay High Court on Monday, 29 October, had refused to grant relief Purohit who had challenged the NIA court's order, rejecting his plea against the sanction for his prosecution under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Purohit then appeared before a special NIA court on Tuesday, 30 October, for the framing of charges against him under UAPA.
The special NIA court had last week rejected the pleas filed by Purohit and the other accused – Pragya Singh Thakur, Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi and Sudhakar Chaturvedi – challenging the validity of the anti-terror law in the case.
On 26 October, the court had said it would frame charges against the accused under the UAPA and relevant sections of the IPC.
Purohit had on Tuesday, 24 October, moved the high court against the lower court's order and said it was "wrong" and "bad in law".
According to Purohit, the sanction to apply the UAPA provisions in the case were not granted in accordance with Section 45 of the Act, which says the sanctioning authority has to take into consideration the report and recommendation of an appropriate authority appointed by the government.
However, no such authority was appointed in January 2009 when the Maharashtra home department's additional chief secretary had accorded the sanction to apply the UAPA in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
“The sanction is, therefore, vitiated and thus, there is no question of framing charges under provisions of the UAPA, and there can be no trial for violation of these provisions.”Shrikant Shivade, lawyer for Lt Col Purohit
The Malegaon Blast
Six people were killed and nearly 100 were injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque at Malegaon, a town in Maharashtra's Nashik district, on 29 September 2008.
The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court had, on 27 December 2017, dismissed the pleas filed by Purohit, his co-accused Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and six others seeking discharge from the case.
The court, however, gave them partial relief by dropping all charges against them under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)