.jpg)
The ATS, on Tuesday, filed a massive chargesheet in the September 2008 Malegaon blast case, but the battle has just begun. And the real fight will only intensify now-in court. With the state relying on the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the accused marshalling a battery of top-notch criminal lawyers
such as Mahesh Jethmalani and Shrikant Shivade, an intense legal battle is in the offing.
The 11 accused were slapped with MCOCA more than a month after their arrests, and the defence has been questioning its validity from day one. The stringent law gives considerable legroom to the prosecution as it allows confessions given to the police by the accused to be used as admissible evidence against them in court. Two key accused have already given confessional statements. The defence lawyers have been crying themselves hoarse that MCOCA was invoked only as an "afterthought'' so that the ATS could extract the confessions. In fact, the first time the prosecution had demanded custody of the accused in a special MCOCA court, it was denied after Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit made allegations against ATS officials, of torture.
Jethmalani, who is the Sadhvi's lawyer, said the application of MCOCA was a "mala fide move'' by the state. Purohit's lawyer Shivade added. "On November 20, when MCOCA was applied, the requirement of two previous chargesheets against at least one of the accused for a similar offence of resorting to violence for monetary gains was not fulfilled,'' he said, pointing out that two chargesheets were filed against one of the accused, Rakesh Dhawade, only after he was named in the Malegaon blast case. The requirement of two prior chargesheets, which the trial court has to take cognizance of, is to show a continuing criminal activity.
The defence argument is that chargesheets were hastily filed against Dhawade only after his name surfaced in the Malegaon case so that MCOCA could be applied in the case and the other 10 accused, too, could be brought under its ambit. They have demanded that MCOCA charges be dropped, the accused tried under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and the case be sent back to a regular court in Nashik.
Jethmalani has been maintaining that there is little evidence barring the alleged link to the Sadhvi's two-wheeler. "I have to see what other evidence there is.'' Regarding the transcript of her allegedly incriminating telephonic conversation with a co-accused, he said: "Whether the conversation was doctored or whether it actually says anything has to be seen.''
The ATS in its chargesheet has attached transcripts of a videographed meeting
between the Shankaracharya, Purohit, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sharma and one R P Singh. Purohit is attributed to be saying: "...The nation is held hostage to the agendas of those individuals and parties... we are being held hosage to the agenda of secularists...''
Wednesday's developments
On Wednesday, special judge Y D Shinde continued to peruse the chargesheet filed by the ATS. It is expected that he will pass an order on taking cognizance of the chargesheet on Thursday. The defence has argued that MCOCA was not applicable to the case and the judge is considering all arguments before passing an order.
such as Mahesh Jethmalani and Shrikant Shivade, an intense legal battle is in the offing.
The 11 accused were slapped with MCOCA more than a month after their arrests, and the defence has been questioning its validity from day one. The stringent law gives considerable legroom to the prosecution as it allows confessions given to the police by the accused to be used as admissible evidence against them in court. Two key accused have already given confessional statements. The defence lawyers have been crying themselves hoarse that MCOCA was invoked only as an "afterthought'' so that the ATS could extract the confessions. In fact, the first time the prosecution had demanded custody of the accused in a special MCOCA court, it was denied after Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit made allegations against ATS officials, of torture.
Jethmalani, who is the Sadhvi's lawyer, said the application of MCOCA was a "mala fide move'' by the state. Purohit's lawyer Shivade added. "On November 20, when MCOCA was applied, the requirement of two previous chargesheets against at least one of the accused for a similar offence of resorting to violence for monetary gains was not fulfilled,'' he said, pointing out that two chargesheets were filed against one of the accused, Rakesh Dhawade, only after he was named in the Malegaon blast case. The requirement of two prior chargesheets, which the trial court has to take cognizance of, is to show a continuing criminal activity.
The defence argument is that chargesheets were hastily filed against Dhawade only after his name surfaced in the Malegaon case so that MCOCA could be applied in the case and the other 10 accused, too, could be brought under its ambit. They have demanded that MCOCA charges be dropped, the accused tried under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and the case be sent back to a regular court in Nashik.
Jethmalani has been maintaining that there is little evidence barring the alleged link to the Sadhvi's two-wheeler. "I have to see what other evidence there is.'' Regarding the transcript of her allegedly incriminating telephonic conversation with a co-accused, he said: "Whether the conversation was doctored or whether it actually says anything has to be seen.''
The ATS in its chargesheet has attached transcripts of a videographed meeting
between the Shankaracharya, Purohit, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sharma and one R P Singh. Purohit is attributed to be saying: "...The nation is held hostage to the agendas of those individuals and parties... we are being held hosage to the agenda of secularists...''
Wednesday's developments
On Wednesday, special judge Y D Shinde continued to peruse the chargesheet filed by the ATS. It is expected that he will pass an order on taking cognizance of the chargesheet on Thursday. The defence has argued that MCOCA was not applicable to the case and the judge is considering all arguments before passing an order.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment