Judge examines Pragya’s bike used in Malegaon blast

The motorcycle was allegedly identified by a witness

July 09, 2019 02:05 am | Updated 02:05 am IST - Mumbai

The motorcycle allegedly owned by Member of Parliament Pragya Singh Thakur, which was used for installing a bomb that killed six and injured 101 in the 2008 Malegaon blast, was identified by a witness in court on Monday.

A panch witness identified the motorcycle in the presence of special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court judge Vinod Padalkar and lawyers for the accused in the case. Two motorcycles and five bicycles allegedly used in the blasts were brought on a truck and parked below the city civil and sessions court premises.

On October 30, 2018, the special court had framed charges of murder, abetment and conspiracy for the blast against Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, Ms. Thakur, Sameer Kulkarni, retired major Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahilkar and Sudhakar Chaturvedi. The court had said, “Abhinav Bharat organisation (alleged to be behind the blast) was formed with the common object to spread terror. All the accused conspired, from January 2008, to plant a bomb with RDX on a motorcycle on September 29, 2008.”

The Maharashtra Anti Terrorist Squad chargesheeted Ms. Thakur in 2009 on the ground that it was her motorcycle that was used to plant the bomb. The chargesheet said Ms. Thakur’s men had acted at her instance and she had full knowledge about her motorcycle being used for the blast.

However, the NIA had found evidence against her to be the weakest and said evidence against her was not substantial. In its supplementary chargesheet, the agency also said the motorcycle, which was registered in her name, was used by an absconding accused, Ramchandra Gopalsingh Kalsangra, known as Ramji.

On April 25, 2017, the Bombay High Court, while granting bail to Ms. Thakur, relied upon statements of witnesses to show that she was not in possession of the motorcycle. “Even assuming that the motorcycle was found at the place of the incident, the fact that she was the registered owner by itself cannot be sufficient in the light of material placed on record,” the court 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.