Top

2008 Malegaon bomb: MCOCA court rejects probe

A special MCOCA court on Friday rejected an application filed by four persons seeking to inspect court proceedings of the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case to ascertain if statements of witnesses were mis

A special MCOCA court on Friday rejected an application filed by four persons seeking to inspect court proceedings of the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case to ascertain if statements of witnesses were missing or not. The applicants had approached the special court seeking action against court officers who were responsible for safekeeping of the documents that according to news reports had gone missing.

“We had sought permission to inspect documents related the trial so that we can ascertain if any documents are missing, however the court has rejected our application,” said advocate Shivraj Tuchke, appearing on behalf of the applicants. He added they would move the Bombay high court against the order. He further added that their main application seeking action against persons responsible for misplacing the statements was still pending before the court.

It may be recalled that the NIA recently filed chargesheet in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case giving clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and five other accused. Subsequently, four individuals filed an application in the special NIA court seeking registration of FIR and action against unknown public servants who were responsible for protecting and keeping court records for causing disappearance of important witness statements.

It is argued in the application that the applicants were also aggrieved the NIA took no efforts for reconstruction of the said missing seven statements, but had recorded two fresh statements under the pretext of further investigation, of the two witnesses, in which they turned hostile. The applicants have alleged that this was an act of tampering with the witnesses by the officers of the NIA prior to examining them before the court.

The applicants have further contended it was for this court to examine if the said statements were recorded by the magistrate under coercion or by force.

Next Story