A Special Court will decide on Monday on a plea made by the National Investigation (NIA) to conduct an in-camera trial in the 2008 Malegaon Bomb Blast case..The probing agency made the plea on Thursday. Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit and BJP MP Pragya Thakur are among the accused in the Malegaon blasts case. In-camera hearings bar the general public and the media from attending the case hearings or reporting on it..The application for in-camera proceedings was filed under Section 17(1) of the NIA Act and 44 (1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). It states,.“For maintaining harmony in the society, it is necessary to conduct in camera hearing and restrain publication of court proceedings.”.Special Judge VS Padalkar, who heard an application on Friday, said that the Court will decide on the application after the respondents file a reply on Monday..In 2016, Lt Col Purohit had filed an application to make the proceedings in-camera. The Special Court had then partly allowed his application and directed that the framing of charges against him be held in-camera..NIA to make plea to protect identity of witnesses.On a related note, the Bombay High Court today gave liberty to the NIA to file an application before Special Court to ensure that the names and full statements of 38 witnesses it wishes to examine are not publicly disclosed..The counsel appearing for the NIA contended that the disclosure of the same will pose a threat to the witnesses in the case. It was argued that their identity needs to be protected before they are examined. The NIA has a list of 186 witnesses. The names and statements of some of the witnesses have not been disclosed, in the interest of their protection..Last month, the High Court had directed the NIA to submit a list of witnesses in a sealed cover, after Lt Col Purohit filed an application for production of the non-truncated chargesheet. Purohit had filed a plea for the disclosure of the names of the witnesses in the case as well. A Division Bench of Justices Indrajit Mahanty and AM Badar dealt with the plea..The High Court, cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, to observe that the NIA should have had submitted the witness list to the Special NIA Court in a sealed cover. In the Kartar Singh case, the Supreme Court had held that courts dealing with terrorism cases have a discretion to keep the identity of witnesses secret upon certain contingencies..Appeal by Purohit against UAPA prosecution to be heard on Aug 7.In another development, the counsel appearing for one of the victims of the Malegaon blast raised objection against former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Lt Col Prasad Purohit before the High Court. The submissions were made in an appeal filed by Purohit claiming that he was charged under UAPA without legal sanction. He had even approached the Supreme Court, which had asked the High Court to decide the matter..Rohatagi argued that Purohit, a decorated army officer, has been victimised and that he had lost major part of his life in jail. He challenged the sanctions granted to prosecute Purohit under the UAPA..Senior Counsel BA Desai pointed out that Rohatagi had appeared as the Attorney General for the State and the NIA in a related matter. The High Court will hear Purohit’s appeal next on August 7..In October last year, a Special Court framed charges against Purohit, BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, and other accused persons under the UAPA. Six people were killed and over 100 injured on September 29, 2008, when an explosive device placed on a motorbike went off near a mosque at Malegaon..Image taken from here..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
A Special Court will decide on Monday on a plea made by the National Investigation (NIA) to conduct an in-camera trial in the 2008 Malegaon Bomb Blast case..The probing agency made the plea on Thursday. Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit and BJP MP Pragya Thakur are among the accused in the Malegaon blasts case. In-camera hearings bar the general public and the media from attending the case hearings or reporting on it..The application for in-camera proceedings was filed under Section 17(1) of the NIA Act and 44 (1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). It states,.“For maintaining harmony in the society, it is necessary to conduct in camera hearing and restrain publication of court proceedings.”.Special Judge VS Padalkar, who heard an application on Friday, said that the Court will decide on the application after the respondents file a reply on Monday..In 2016, Lt Col Purohit had filed an application to make the proceedings in-camera. The Special Court had then partly allowed his application and directed that the framing of charges against him be held in-camera..NIA to make plea to protect identity of witnesses.On a related note, the Bombay High Court today gave liberty to the NIA to file an application before Special Court to ensure that the names and full statements of 38 witnesses it wishes to examine are not publicly disclosed..The counsel appearing for the NIA contended that the disclosure of the same will pose a threat to the witnesses in the case. It was argued that their identity needs to be protected before they are examined. The NIA has a list of 186 witnesses. The names and statements of some of the witnesses have not been disclosed, in the interest of their protection..Last month, the High Court had directed the NIA to submit a list of witnesses in a sealed cover, after Lt Col Purohit filed an application for production of the non-truncated chargesheet. Purohit had filed a plea for the disclosure of the names of the witnesses in the case as well. A Division Bench of Justices Indrajit Mahanty and AM Badar dealt with the plea..The High Court, cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, to observe that the NIA should have had submitted the witness list to the Special NIA Court in a sealed cover. In the Kartar Singh case, the Supreme Court had held that courts dealing with terrorism cases have a discretion to keep the identity of witnesses secret upon certain contingencies..Appeal by Purohit against UAPA prosecution to be heard on Aug 7.In another development, the counsel appearing for one of the victims of the Malegaon blast raised objection against former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Lt Col Prasad Purohit before the High Court. The submissions were made in an appeal filed by Purohit claiming that he was charged under UAPA without legal sanction. He had even approached the Supreme Court, which had asked the High Court to decide the matter..Rohatagi argued that Purohit, a decorated army officer, has been victimised and that he had lost major part of his life in jail. He challenged the sanctions granted to prosecute Purohit under the UAPA..Senior Counsel BA Desai pointed out that Rohatagi had appeared as the Attorney General for the State and the NIA in a related matter. The High Court will hear Purohit’s appeal next on August 7..In October last year, a Special Court framed charges against Purohit, BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, and other accused persons under the UAPA. Six people were killed and over 100 injured on September 29, 2008, when an explosive device placed on a motorbike went off near a mosque at Malegaon..Image taken from here..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
