Malegaon Bomb Blasts Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Malegaon Bomb Blasts Plea Challenging UAPA Charges

0
Malegaon Bomb Blasts Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Malegaon Bomb Blasts Plea Challenging UAPA Charges
Malegaon Bomb Blasts Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Malegaon Bomb Blasts Plea Challenging UAPA Charges

The Bombay High Court has ruled against a petition filed by the two accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blasts Lt Col Prasad Purohit and Sameer Kulkarni, that challenged the application of the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 to the case.

A bench comprising Justice Naresh Patil and Justice Nitin Sambre rejected their petition stating that the trial court would be dealing with their objections at an appropriate time.

Purohit had filed the challenge alleging that the application of the UAPA in the case was in violation of its mandatory provisions.

In January 2009, Additional Chief Secretary of the Maharashtra home department had approve the application of UAPA’s stringent provisions to the case .

Application Of Act Violates Its Provisions

Purohit’s counsel, Shrikant Shivade, argued that the application of the Act violated section 45 of the UAPA, which mandates that the sanctioning authority consider the report and recommendation provided by an appropriate authority appointed by the government.

According to Shivade, no appropriate authority had been appointed by Maharashtra government which constituted as a breach of the mandatory requirement.  He stated that this failure violated the sanction provided and so there was no basis for “framing charges under provisions of UAPA” and therefore no trial needed for the violation of these provisions.

Objections To Be Heard During Trial

Representing National Investigation Agency (NIA), advocate Sandesh Patil, said that Purohit had raised the issue of the sanction in the high court while applying for bail as well, which had been rejected by the HC and later confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Patil also highlighted that the SC observation that the petitioners’ contentions can be examined only during the trial.

The HC bench also took into consideration the fact that the two had argued regarding their discharge applications before the trial court earlier which has reserved its orders.

A powerful bomb exploded in September 2008 near a religious shrine which led the death of six people and injured nearly 100 others.

In October 2008, Maharashtra Anti-Terrorists Squad made the first arrests in case and in January, the ATS filed a chargesheet after completing its investigation. In  2011, the case was transferred by the Centre to the NIA.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here