Malegaon blasts case: NIA court rejects Pragya’s plea to waive presence

Grounds for seeking exemption were not reasonable and genuine, says Special judge Vinod Padalkar.

June 20, 2019 04:17 pm | Updated 10:28 pm IST - Mumbai

BJP MP Pragya Thakur arrives at Parliament House on June 19, 2019.

BJP MP Pragya Thakur arrives at Parliament House on June 19, 2019.

In a major setback to Bharatiya Janata Party MP and prime accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blasts case, Pragya Singh Thakur, the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on Thursday rejected her plea seeking permanent exemption from appearing before the court during the trial.

Ms. Thakur was represented by her lawyer, advocate JP Mishra who filed an application on her behalf, seeking an exemption till the end of the Parliament session on July 26.

The plea said she is suffering from various ailments and was not in a condition to attend the court. It also said being a ‘sadhvi’ (a priestess) she has to follow a strict discipline for her ‘sadhna’ (worship) and dietary rules. On the basis of this, it was not possible for her to travel from Bhopal to Mumbai every week.

The application also mentioned that now that she is a MP she has some duties in Parliament. As per her party’s whip, she needs to attend the ongoing session. Special judge Vinod Padalkar exempted her from appearance on Thursday but said the grounds for exemption were “not reasonable and genuine.”

The court said, “Attendance of Parliament is necessary and one should obey the whip of the party. However, no documentary evidence about any such whip was produced.” Last month, the court had directed all the accused in the case to appear before it once a week.

Judge Padalkar referred to the statements made by Ms. Thakur on June 7 and how she threw a fit about the chair provided to her in the court and the dust all around her.

“There were some statements made [by Thakur] that the premises of court hall was not clean... On humanitarian grounds the court repeatedly asked her to sit on the chair which she refused.

“She deliberately and intentionally did not notice construction work happening in the court premises,” the judge said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.