Blast not official duty: Bombay HC rejects Prasad Purohit’s plea in 2008 Malegaon case – Times of India

MUMBAI: A bomb explosion and causing the death of six people is not an act of “official duty”, the Bombay high court observed Monday, dismissing an appeal for discharge filed by Lt Col Prasad Purohit, an accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
Purohit “is the key conspirator in the present crime”, said the HC bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and P D Naik. It held that there was no connection with the blast and Purohit’s official duties and hence no prior sanction for his criminal prosecution was required. The blast on September 29, 2008 killed six people and injured 100 after an explosive device on a motorbike went off in the handloom town.
“A minute perusal of the record clearly indicates the appellant was never granted permission by the government to float Abhinav Bharat in spite of being a serving commissioned officer of the armed forces,” said the HC adding he “was also not permitted to collect funds for the organisation and to disburse it to procure weapons & explosives for unlawful activities … (he) has actively participated with other co-accused and has organized and conducted various meetings with them in furtherance of their common object of the criminal conspiracy to commit unlawful activities.”
Purohit, associated with the “military intelligence department”, said he was gathering intelligence as part of his official acts in the Army. He had sought discharge on grounds of lack of prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure code (CrPC), which calls for prior nod of the Centre when armed forces members are accused of any offence in performance of their official duty.
Purohit is facing trial before a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy read with murder under the Indian Penal Code and offence under the stringent anti-terror law — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The maximum punishment attracted is the death sentence.
Purohit had sought discharge — dropping of the NIA case against him — and had appealed in 2018 after a rejection order passed by the special trial court in December 2017.
He was gathering information regarding Abhinav Bharat and his superiors were kept abreast of his actions, his counsel Neela Gokhale argued.
If Purohit’s contention that he was directed to gather information “is to be accepted then the question remains… why did he 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,” said the HC bench, finding no merit in his appeal. “Even otherwise indulging into (sic) an activity of a bomb explosion causing death of six persons is not an act done by (Purohit) in his official duty.”
The HC agreed with submissions of Sandesh Patil, counsel for NIA, who sought dismissal of Purohit’s appeal and said that the trial court committed no error while taking cognisance of the offence alleged against Purohit and rejecting his discharge plea on that ground. Patil had argued that acts attributed to Purohit were totally unconnected with his official duty and thus no prior sanction was needed to prosecute him.
In December 2022, BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, one of the seven co-accused in the case, withdrew her plea before the Bombay HC for discharge in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, as did a co-accused, Sameer Kulkarni. Both had appealed in January 2018 against a December 2017 rejection of their plea for discharge in the case.