Judicial lens focused on ATS methods & conclusions in other cases too

Time of India

18 hours ago

Mumbai: The 11/7 train blasts case is not the first time the Anti-Terrorism Squad's (ATS) methods and conclusions have faced judicial scrutiny. In 2016, a special National Investigation Agency (
NIA
) court discharged eight Muslim men who were labelled "terror accused" by ATS in the 2006 Malegaon serial blasts case.
The presiding judge stated that these individuals, due to prior criminal records, were made scapegoats by ATS.
The credibility of ATS investigations faces another significant test next week with the impending verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case; that blast killed 6 people and injured 100. In this instance, ATS named and arrested a dozen individuals. But NIA in its own investigation in 2016 provided a clean chit to six accused, including ex-BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur.
Despite NIA's findings, the ATS' original investigation largely prevailed, with the NIA court ruling Thakur would indeed stand trial. However, the judge dropped charges invoked under MCOCA, charges initially applied by ATS but later revoked by NIA in its 2016 chargesheet. The NIA informed court that during its investigation, "it was established that no offence under MCOCA was attracted and hence the confessional statements recorded by ATS under the Act were not relied upon.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
15 most beautiful women in the world
Topgentlemen.com
Undo
" Notably, NIA in its 2016 chargesheet accused ATS of planting RDX traces to frame accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit. While NIA let off Thakur and five others, citing insufficient evidence, the judge refused to grant Thakur's plea for discharge. During the trial over 30 witnesses turned hostile.
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
The history of probe into the 2006 Malegaon blasts further illustrates the pattern of judicial intervention. On Sept 8, 2006, 31 people died and 312 were injured in four blasts in Malegaon.
The ATS arrested nine Muslim men, alleging they belonged to SIMI. In Dec 2006, ATS filed a 4,500-page chargesheet. However, the case was handed over to CBI the same day following complaints from Malegaon residents that the nine were framed.
In 2011, the case was transferred to NIA after the CBI team indicated the role of right-wing outfits, a suspicion reinforced when Swami Aseemanand, an accused in the Mecca Masjid blast, confessed a right-wing group was involved.
On Nov 5, 2011, the special MCOCA court granted bail to the nine accused. While seven were released on bail, two remained in jail due to their alleged role in the 11/7 blasts. In 2016, eight accused were discharged, and charges against one who died in 2015 were abated.
Proceedings continued against four other accused, against whom NIA filed a chargesheet in 2013.
In the discharge order, special judge VV Patil stated that while ATS officers who conducted the probe had no animosity with the accused, "in my view, as they discharged their public duty but in a wrong way, they may not be blamed for it."
The judge expressed doubt that "it seemed highly impossible that the accused who are from the Muslim community would have decided to kill their own people to create disharmony in two communities, that too on a holy day of Shab-e-baraat.
" The judge further referenced NIA findings, which revealed that an ATS witness, who previously claimed to have witnessed bomb preparation, retracted his statement, asserting it was taken under duress.
Additionally, NIA found all confessional statements recorded by ATS were retracted as they were taken under "pressure and duress."
Mohammed Majid, whom ATS identified as one of the planters, told NIA that on the day of the blasts he was 400 km away at Fulsawangi, Yavatmal. The order came 10 days after NIA, unlike its previous stance, strongly objected to the discharge pleas. Dubbing it as an "ulta face," the judge said, "At the time of first hearing of the matter, the prosecution has canvassed they have nothing to say except the reply filed by NIA upon the discharge applications," the judge said.
During its reply to the discharge plea in Aug 2013, NIA did not oppose the pleas and instead said its evidence "was not in consonance with evidence collected earlier by ATS and CBI," which recommended prosecution of the nine accused.
Judicial lens focused on ATS methods & conclusions in other cases too
Rebecca.Samervel
Mumbai: The 11/7 train blasts case is not the first time the Anti-Terrorism Squad's (ATS) methods and conclusions have faced judicial scrutiny.
In 2016, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court discharged eight Muslim men who were labelled "terror accused" by ATS in the 2006 Malegaon serial blasts case. The presiding judge stated that these individuals, due to prior criminal records, were made scapegoats by ATS.
The credibility of ATS investigations faces another significant test next week with the impending verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case; that blast killed 6 people and injured 100.
In this instance, ATS named and arrested a dozen individuals. But NIA in its own investigation in 2016 provided a clean chit to six accused, including ex-BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur.
Despite NIA's findings, the ATS' original investigation largely prevailed, with the NIA court ruling Thakur would indeed stand trial. However, the judge dropped charges invoked under MCOCA, charges initially applied by ATS but later revoked by NIA in its 2016 chargesheet.
The NIA informed court that during its investigation, "it was established that no offence under MCOCA was attracted and hence the confessional statements recorded by ATS under the Act were not relied upon.
" Notably, NIA in its 2016 chargesheet accused ATS of planting RDX traces to frame accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit. While NIA let off Thakur and five others, citing insufficient evidence, the judge refused to grant Thakur's plea for discharge.
During the trial over 30 witnesses turned hostile.
The history of probe into the 2006 Malegaon blasts further illustrates the pattern of judicial intervention. On Sept 8, 2006, 31 people died and 312 were injured in four blasts in Malegaon. The ATS arrested nine Muslim men, alleging they belonged to SIMI. In Dec 2006, ATS filed a 4,500-page chargesheet. However, the case was handed over to CBI the same day following complaints from Malegaon residents that the nine were framed.
In 2011, the case was transferred to NIA after the CBI team indicated the role of right-wing outfits, a suspicion reinforced when Swami Aseemanand, an accused in the Mecca Masjid blast, confessed a right-wing group was involved. On Nov 5, 2011, the special MCOCA court granted bail to the nine accused. While seven were released on bail, two remained in jail due to their alleged role in the 11/7 blasts. In 2016, eight accused were discharged, and charges against one who died in 2015 were abated.
Proceedings continued against four other accused, against whom NIA filed a chargesheet in 2013.
In the discharge order, special judge VV Patil stated that while ATS officers who conducted the probe had no animosity with the accused, "in my view, as they discharged their public duty but in a wrong way, they may not be blamed for it." The judge expressed doubt that "it seemed highly impossible that the accused who are from the Muslim community would have decided to kill their own people to create disharmony in two communities, that too on a holy day of Shab-e-baraat.
" The judge further referenced NIA findings, which revealed that an ATS witness, who previously claimed to have witnessed bomb preparation, retracted his statement, asserting it was taken under duress. Additionally, NIA found all confessional statements recorded by ATS were retracted as they were taken under "pressure and duress."
Mohammed Majid, whom ATS identified as one of the planters, told NIA that on the day of the blasts he was 400 km away at Fulsawangi, Yavatmal. The order came 10 days after NIA, unlike its previous stance, strongly objected to the discharge pleas. Dubbing it as an "ulta face," the judge said, "At the time of first hearing of the matter, the prosecution has canvassed they have nothing to say except the reply filed by NIA upon the discharge applications," the judge said.
During its reply to the discharge plea in Aug 2013, NIA did not oppose the pleas and instead said its evidence "was not in consonance with evidence collected earlier by ATS and CBI," which recommended prosecution of the nine accused.