PTI

Mumbai, January 2

Lt Col Prasad Purohit was not performing his official responsibility when indulging within the exercise of bomb explosion inflicting the demise of six individuals, the Bombay High Court mentioned on Monday whereas refusing to discharge him within the September 2008 Malegaon blast case.

In a 24-page order, a division bench comprising justices AS Gadkari and Prakash Naik, whereas dismissing Purohit’s plea searching for discharge for need of sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, held that whether it is to just accept the accused’s competition that he was solely performing his official responsibility, then the query stays as to why he didn’t avert the blast.

Purohit and 6 others, together with BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, are dealing with trial within the case and costs have been framed underneath varied sections together with the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Neela Gokhale, counsel for Purohit, had submitted that on the date of the fee of the alleged offence, he was a public servant and was performing his lawful responsibility and reasoned that the prosecuting company ought to have sought a sanction from competent authorities earlier than the submitting of costs in opposition to him.

“If the contention of the appellant that he was directed to perform an official duty to gather information regarding ‘Abhinav Bharat’ is to be accepted then the question remains to be answered that, why he did not avert the bomb blast in the civilian locality of Malegaon which caused loss of life of six innocent persons and severe to grievous injuries to about 100 persons,” it mentioned.

The judgment added that indulging in an exercise of a bomb explosion inflicting the demise of six individuals shouldn’t be an act accomplished by Purohit in his official responsibility.

It added {that a} perusal of prosecution data clearly signifies that Purohit was by no means granted permission by the federal government to drift the Abhinav Bharat organisation inspite of being a serving Commissioned Officer of the Armed Forces of India.

“Appellant (Purohit) was also not permitted to collect funds for the said organisation and to disburse it to procure weapons and explosives for their unlawful activities. Appellant is the key conspirator in the present crime,” the bench mentioned.

It added that Purohit had actively participated with different co-accused and organised and carried out varied conferences with them in furtherance of their frequent object of the legal conspiracy to commit illegal actions.

Purohit, a serving military officer, sought a discharge within the case on the grounds that he had attended conferences of the group Abhinav Bharat the place the conspiracy for the Malegaon blast was hatched on directions of his superiors.

The High Court, nevertheless, refused to just accept this and mentioned the alleged offences dedicated by Purohit has nothing to do together with his official responsibility.

“It has nothing to do or related in any manner with the discharge of the official duty of the Appellant,” it mentioned, including that it’s completely unconnected together with his official responsibility.

“According to us, there is no reasonable connection between the offence alleged against the Appellant and his official duty. The act alleged against the Appellant has not been committed in the discharge of his official duty,” the High Court mentioned.

Purohit had claimed that the prosecuting company had didn’t acquire correct sanction to prosecute a serving military officer, which was a mandate underneath the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bench, nevertheless, rejected this competition, opining that because the acts had not been dedicated as a part of official duties, and there was no query of searching for correct sanction.

On September 29, 2008, six folks have been killed and greater than 100 injured when an explosive machine strapped to a bike went off close to a mosque in Malegaon, a communally delicate city in Maharashtra’s Nashik district.

According to the Maharashtra Police who carried out an preliminary probe into the case, the bike was registered in Thakur’s title which led to her arrest.

The case was later taken over by the NIA. All accused are at the moment out on bail.