Who is Lt Colonel Prasad Purohit? Malegaon blast accused acquitted after 17 years
The Mumbai court acquitted the seven accused saying that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Also Read: Malegaon Blast Case Verdict LIVE Updates: NIA court acquits all 7 accused; case 'ruined life,' says Pragya Thakur
Purohit was arrested for allegedly masterminding the blasts in 2008 and spent nearly nine years in jail before being granted bail in 2017.
Here is all you need to know about Prasad Purohit:
⦁ Lt Col Prasad Purohit was arrested by ATS in November 2008 for his alleged involvement in the conspiracy of the Malegaon blast.
⦁ The ATS files charge-sheet against 11 arrested accused, including Purohit, on January 20, 2009 before special court. He was allegedly made the mastermind of the bomb blast case.
⦁ It was alleged that Col Prasad Purohit had sourced RDX from Jammu and Kashmir and assembled the bomb at his residence.
⦁ Lt Colonel Purohit had claimed earlier this year that he was tortured by Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) officers and was forced into taking the name of senior BJP and RSS leaders, including Yogi Adityanath.
⦁ Though the Bombay High Court in 2017 granted bail to Pragya Thakur, his bail plea was rejected. He finally got bail in September 2017 from the Supreme Court.
⦁ The court on Thursday, while speaking on the charges against him, said there was insufficient evidence to prove his direct involvement or conspiracy in the blast.
⦁ Reacting to his acquittal, Purohit said, "I am a soldier who loves this country immensely. The country must always remain supreme and its foundations strong."
A total of 7 people were made accused in the Malegaon blast case, including former MP Sadhvi Pragya, Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhankar Dhar Dwivedi (Shankaracharya) and Sameer Kulkarni.
Special NIA Judge A K Lahoti acquitted all the seven accused noting there was no "cogent and reliable" evidence to warrant conviction.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
30 minutes ago
- The Hindu
‘Conspiracy not proven': special judge while dismissing all charges in Malegaon blast case
Seventeen years after a powerful blast shook the communally sensitive town of Malegaon in Maharashtra, a special NIA court in Mumbai has acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 blast case, sharply criticising the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for presenting what it called 'inconclusive,' 'unreliable,' and 'legally inadmissible' evidence. In a 1,036-page judgment that was delivered on July 31 and made available on August 1, evening, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the alleged terror conspiracy attributed to the right-wing outfit Abhinav Bharat. 'Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent, reliable, and legally acceptable evidence. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions. Such discrepancies undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case and fall short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,' the order said. The court further said, that the accused Pragyasingh Chandrapalsingh Thakur, Major Ramesh Shivji Upadhyaya, Sameer Sharad Kulkarni, Ajay Raja Eknath Rahirkar, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi and Sudhakar Onkarnath Chaturvedi are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable Sections 120-B, 153-A, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427 IPC and sections 16 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908 vide section 235(1) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973. 'Bail bond of accused persons stand cancelled. The sureties stand discharged. The prosecuting agencies are at liberty to file a separate charge-sheet against the absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange on their arrest. All the Muddemal including gadgets shall be preserved in safe and sure custody. It should be ensured that all the Muddemal would be made available whenever called by the Appellate court or needed for trial against absconding accused or disposal as per the rules,' the judgement said. The accused persons are directed to execute the bail bonds with surety in the amount of ₹20,000 each to appear before the higher court in compliance of section 437-A of the code of criminal procedure, 1973. The copy of the judgement is also to be sent to collector, D.G. of ATS and NIA for perusal and necessary action, the judge directed. The victims and injured are entitled to get compensation under the victim's compensation scheme. 'And hence, the prosecuting agency to prepare the separate victims / injured list and shall be forwarded to DLSA Mumbai, for compensation. After receipt of the said list, the DLSA, Mumbai to take the necessary steps to get the compensation to the victims. The compensatory amount of Rs. Two Lakh to each deceased family be paid and the amount of Rs.50,000/- to each injured be paid,' the order said. On September 29, 2008, during the holy month of Ramzan, a powerful bomb explosion rocked a crowded area in Malegaon around 9:35 p.m. The blast occurred near Shakeel Goods Transport Company, between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk. The explosive device had been planted on an LML Freedom motorcycle bearing a fake registration number — MH-15-P-4572. The explosion killed six people, left 101 injured, and caused significant damage to nearby properties. The prosecution examined a total of 323 witnesses over the course of the trial. The investigation spanned across three agencies over the years: the Local Crime Branch (LCB), Nashik Gramin, in coordination with Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon; the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Mumbai; and later, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), New Delhi, which took over the case in 2011. The judge while reading the judgement on July 31, said, 'After completion of marathon hearing advanced by them, I have gone through written notes of arguments, charge-sheets and entire evidence on record in the form of oral and documentary. In the backdrop of the facts, it is also necessary to mention that the evidence on record creates grave suspicion against the accused but on mere suspicion there cannot be a conviction. Hence, I am extending the benefit of doubt.' The court, while analysing the credibility of witness testimonies, emphasised that statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC—whether oral, written, or in electronic form—are not substantive evidence. They can be used solely to highlight contradictions or omissions during a trial. For such statements to carry weight, the witness must clearly acknowledge them during their deposition. Moreover, the court must be convinced that the statement was made voluntarily, free from coercion, tutoring, or pressure. If these conditions are not met, the court noted, such statements lose evidentiary value and are liable to be discarded. 'Before I conclude, it is necessary to place on record the fact that, I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the judge said. It further added, 'It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden rests entirely upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, based on admissible and credible evidence. The more serious offence, the higher standard of proof required for conviction. Admittedly, in the present case there is no reliable, cogent and acceptable evidence on record, as discussed supra, to warrant the conviction.' The court noted that most witnesses turned hostile, stating during their testimony that their earlier statements were not given voluntarily but were dictated under coercion by ATS officers. Several also alleged torture, ill-treatment, and illegal detention during the investigation. While no formal complaints were filed against the officers, the court held that this alone could not be used to discredit the witnesses. It observed that the absence of complaints does not negate the possibility of coercion, as decisions to report misconduct often depend on factors such as fear of retaliation, psychological trauma, and lack of confidence in the system. 'Moreover, it emerges from the evidence of witnesses that certain witnesses have demonstrated courage and filed complaints against ATS personnel, specifically alleging acts of torture, harassment, and illegal detention. In addition to it, the several facts are admitted by the investigating officer of NIA PW-321 ( Anil Dubey) in his cross examination which also shows that, during the course of their investigation, it was transpired that, the ATS officers tortured, illegally detained not only to the some witnesses but also the accused. This underscores the credibility of such allegations,' the judge observed. The court observed that two key agencies — ATS and NIA — carried out separate and independent investigations, each filing its own charge-sheet. However, allegations of torture, misconduct, and illegal detention were made solely against ATS officers, with no such claims against NIA personnel. This, the court noted, raises serious concerns about the conduct of the ATS and casts doubt on the credibility of the evidence it collected during its investigation. 'I have gone through the aforesaid citations. I have no doubt about the legal propositions laid down in the aforesaid citations. It is also necessary to mention that, mere filing or placing on record the number of citations would not be enough when facts are not supporting to the case of prosecution. With due respect, the facts of the present case are different than the facts mentioned in aforesaid citations and hence, in the present scenario of the case, the citations filed on record by prosecution would not helpful to them,' the order read. The court noted that the prosecution failed to examine several material witnesses, whose names were referenced in specific portions of the judgment. While it is the prosecutor's discretion to decide which witnesses to present, this discretion must be exercised fairly and in the interest of justice. The prosecution must not withhold witnesses merely because their testimony may weaken its case. In serious offences like murder, the prosecutor's duty is not just to secure convictions, but to assist the court in arriving at the truth. The court added that if it appears that key witnesses were deliberately kept back, it is open to the court to draw an adverse inference, indicating serious infirmities in the prosecution's case. The statements of key witnesses relating to the alleged conspiracy, meetings, or other incriminating circumstances have not sufficiently supported the case of the prosecuting agency. While there may be strong suspicion against the accused, mere suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof, the order said. It is pertinent to note that the witnesses deposed after a considerable lapse of time from the date of the alleged incident, which has led to natural lapses in memory and narration, it added. 'However, when contradictions, omissions, embellishments, and other infirmities in the testimony raise grave doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution's version, it would be unsafe for the Court to rely on such evidence. Though, the testimony of police witnesses suggest that they were consistent and meticulous in detailing the procedural aspect concerning the recording of statements, arrest and recovery of articles, but the overall evidence does not inspire sufficient confidence to warrant conviction.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
NIA judge junks claim ATS wanted to arrest RSS chief
Mumbai: In the detailed 1,036-page judgment in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, the special NIA court, while acquitting all seven accused, has dismissed claims that senior officers from the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had directed one of the investigating officers to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in the case. Special judge A K Lahoti said the court did not find force in the contentions raised by the lawyer for a now-acquitted accused, math pontiff Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi. The lawyer had alleged investigating officer Mehboob Mujawar of ATS allegedly refused to carry out the order to arrest Bhagwat, saying he found no evidence of his involvement. As a result, Mujawar was "entangled in a false case by ATS." While ex-ATS cop Mehboob Mujawar had first made the claim about being under pressure to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in 2016, he was back in the news on Friday, repeating his statement a day after the trial court's verdict in the Malegaon blast case. Mujawar was not among witnesses who deposed before the special court in the blast case, but he first made this claim before a Solapur court in 2016 in a case registered against him. The special NIA court held that was "his (Mujawar's) defence before the particular court" and was not presented as testimony in the Malegaon blast case. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The judge concluded that while Mujawar was a member of the ATS team investigating the case, documents submitted by the defence lawyer did not provide sufficient, provable evidence to consider the claim. The judge noted these documents included a certified copy of an application and a statement given by Mujawar in a separate case. The judge stated that these documents alone could not be considered evidence in the trial, as Mujawar was not examined as a witness in the Malegaon blast case. "So merely placing some documents is not sufficient. It must be proved through the cogent and reliable testimony of the concerned witness," the judge said. Pointing to evidence that came on record pertaining to Mujawar, the trial court judge referred to the statement of ATS ACP Mohan Kulkarni, who had denied the suggestion given in his cross-examination that Mujawar was sent by them (ATS) to bring one senior office-bearer of RSS. Kulkarni admitted Mujawar was sent to trace absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. He denied the suggestion that Mujawar had publicly declared that the ATS shot dead two persons and hence his name was not included in the list of witnesses filed with the chargesheet. In 2016, Mujawar had claimed Dange and Kalsangra were "no more" but were being still shown as alive by police officers. This claim too was made in an affidavit before the Solapur court when Mujawar was accused in a case of criminal intimidation and under the Arms Act. Kalsangra's family demanded a probe into allegations of murder. In May 2016, it was reported Dange was spotted in Nepal on several occasions. The cross-examination of NIA Dy SP Anil Dubey showed he knew Mujawar was an ATS team member. Mujawar was called to the NIA office, and the agency inquired with him about his statement to the media about the deaths.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Claim of order to arrest Bhagwat: Court says can't take as evidence
A DAY after the Special Court acquitted seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, allegations by a former Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) officer that he was asked to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat found mention in the detailed judgment, a copy of which was made available on Friday. The court, however, said that since he was not examined as a witness in the case, and his statement was made before a Solapur court, it cannot be construed as evidence. The order, which has a separate section titled 'Directions to arrest RSS chief', states that the lawyer of one of the accused, Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, had, during the trial, brought a statement made by the former ATS officer, Mehboob Mujawar, in a Solapur court which said: 'The senior ATS officers had given directions to him (Mujawar) to arrest Mr Mohan Bhagwat (RSS chief) by taking him in custody.' According to the statement, Mujawar denied Bhagwat's role and declined to arrest him. A false case was then allegedly filed by the ATS against Mujawar, who was later acquitted. The court observed that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had already inquired with the former ATS officer on his allegations. On Thursday, Mujawar repeated these claims before the media. He named an IPS officer, who, he claimed, had asked him to arrest Bhagwat. He alleged that since he did not arrest Bhagwat, a false case under the Arms Act was registered against him (Mujawar) at the officer's behest and he was suspended. Mujawar claimed that a Solapur court later acquitted him in the case. The officer against whom the allegation was made did not respond. Posting a video clip of Mujawar's statement, the BJP said on X: 'This is not just a scandal, it is an abuse of power, a conspiracy against the nation, and a sinister plot to malign nationalists. Who were the higher authorities? Who has the political cover for this witch-hunt? Who tried to falsely frame the RSS chief?' In its order, the court said: 'The PW-320 (ACP Mohan Kulkarni, ATS chief investigating officer) had denied the suggestion given in his cross examination that Mehboob Mujawar was sent by them to bring one senior office-bearer of RSS. But admitted that he was sent to find out / trace out AA-1 (absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra) and AA-2 (absconding accused Sandeep Dange). He also denied the suggestion that Mehboob Mujawar publicly declared that the ATS shot dead two persons and hence, his name was not included in the list of witness filed with chargesheet.' The order also refers to the deposition of Anil Dubey, NIA's investigating officer, who said that Mujawar was called to the agency's office and they inquired with him about his statements in the media about the deaths of Kalsangra and Dange. In 2016, Mujawar had claimed that he was 'witness to their killings and the disposal of their bodies as victims of 26/11 terror attacks'. He claimed that the duo had been shot dead in custody by the ATS, and he was later asked to lead attempts to look for them. The two wanted accused have not been traced till date. The court said Mujawar was not listed as a witness, nor was he examined as a witness by either the prosecution or the defence. On the documents containing Mujawar's allegations mentioned in the Solapur court, the court said: 'The statement recorded u/s 313 of CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code, statement of accused) cannot be construed as evidence on the counts that the statement is not recorded before this court and in support of those documents, he is not examined as a witness before this court. So, merely placing some documents is not sufficient. It must be proved through the cogent and reliable testimony of the concerned witness.' 'Moreover, those documents show that it was his defence before the particular court and not before this court. Therefore, I did not find any force in the aforesaid contention raised by the Ld (learned) Advocate for the A-10 (Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi),' concludes the section on Mujawar's allegations.
