Malegaon 2008 blast case: Court directs enquiry against anti-terror squad officer

After giving clean chit to all the accused in the Malegaon 2008 blast case, the court has directed an enquiry into serious allegations against a Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) officer and the submission of allegedly fake medical certificates during the course of the investigation. This comes even as the court noted the failure of both the Maharashtra ATS and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to furnish cogent evidence to prove the charges against the accused.

The NIA, which took over the probe from the ATS in 2011, had in its supplementary chargesheet exonerated former BJP MP from Bhopal, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. However, the same chargesheet implicated ATS officer Shekhar Bagade in allegedly planting RDX traces at the residence of one of the accused, Sudhakar Chaturvedi — a military informer residing near co-accused Lt Colonel Prasad Purohit in Nashik’s Deolali cantonment area.

According to the chargesheet, the NIA relied on testimonies from an Army Major and a Subedar who deposed before a Court of Enquiry during Lt Colonel Purohit’s appeal. They alleged that Bagade had entered Chaturvedi’s home in his absence and left traces of RDX, later picked up by an ATS team using cotton swabs. The officers further claimed Bagade had pleaded with them not to report the incident.

Special Judge A K Lahoti, while summarising his over 1000-page judgment on July 31, stated that Bagade’s alleged conduct — although denied by him — raised serious suspicion. “There is no explanation on record by the ATS regarding this act. The facts tilt towards the theory of planting,” the judge noted, ordering a formal inquiry into the matter.

The court also flagged irregularities in medical evidence submitted by the ATS. Judge Lahoti pointed out that some injury certificates appeared to be issued by unauthorised practitioners at the instance of ATS officers, while others were allegedly manipulated. The court refused to accept these documents and ordered a separate inquiry into the alleged fabrication.

While reading out the operative part of the judgment, Judge Lahoti underlined the gravity of the crime and the societal impact of the case going unpunished. “Before I conclude, it is necessary to place on record that I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration and trauma caused to society at large, and more particularly to the victims’ families, by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, law does not permit the court to convict the accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion.”

He further emphasised the legal standard required in terrorism cases, saying, “The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter. The more serious the offence, the higher the degree of proof needed for conviction.”

The full judgment is awaited and is expected to provide comprehensive insights into the court’s reasoning and findings.

- Ends