Supreme Court Disposes Plea Against Pragya Singh Thakur's Bail, Notes NIA Court Has Reserved Judgment In 2008 Malegaon Blasts Case

The Supreme Court today (May 2) disposed of a Special Leave Petition filed in 2017 by Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayed Bilal, father of one of the blast victims, challenging the Bombay High Court Judgment granting bail to Pragya Singh Chandrapal Singh Thakur alias Sadhvi alias Swami Purnchet Anand Giri, an accused in the 2008 Malegaon Blasts.

Before a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, Senior Advocate Ejaz Majbool (for Nisar) submitted that the SLP was filed seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Sadhvi on April 25, 2017 by the High Court which said "no prima facie" case was made out against her in the case.

However, since the NIA Court has now concluded the trials in the Malegaon blasts, almost after a period of 16 years, the Court can dispose of the matter, the counsel suggested. He stated that the judgment was reserved on April 19.  Seven people were killed in a bomb blast on September 29, 2008 at Malegaon, a town in Nasik district of north Maharashtra.

He added that the NIA Court has examined 108 witnesses. He pressed that the Court must make sure that the Special Judge AK Lahoti is not transferred before the judgment is pronounced. It should be noted that Lahoti is on the list of judges who are proposed to be transferred as per the notification issued by the Bombay High Court's Registry. However, the Bombay High Court permitted the judge to remain there till August 31.

Appearing for accused Sadhvi, Advocate Avdhesh Kumar Singh pointed out that the judgment is likely to be pronounced on May 8. A direction has also been issued for all the accused persons to be present in the Court on that day, he added. 

Therefore, the Court ordering disposing of the petition: "Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Special Court, NIA, constituted under the NIA Act, 2008, in Mumbai, has reserved the judgment in the NIA Special Case No. 1/2016 and in all likelihood may be pronounced this month. Hence, appropriate orders may be made in this petition. Learned Counsel for Respondent 2 also acknowledged the said submissions. In the circumstances, we don't find any reason to consider this matter any further. Hence, disposed owing to the aforesaid reasons."

Case Details: NISAR AHMED HAJI SAYED BILAL Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|SLP(Crl) No. 5668/2017