PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications for bail have been filed by two persons arrested and charge sheeted in connection with bomb blasts at Malegaon, District Nasik on 29th September, 2008, for their alleged involvement in offences punishable , , , , , , of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections , , and of Explosive Substances Act read with Sections , , and of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Act (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA ) and read with Sections and Sections , and of the Indian Arms Act read with Sections , and of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as UAPA ). The applicants were arrested on 5th November, 2008 and 2nd November, 2008 respectively.

(2.) FACTS which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these two applications and which may, for the sake of arguments, be taken to be not in serious dispute are as under :

(3.) APART from deliberation at the meeting, the investigators found that the accused persons had organized an activity for showing how bombs/explosives explode in a jungle near Pune, about which according to the learned counsel for the applicants, evidence from villagers is missing. Rahirkar is alleged to have paid for purchase of some arms from the funds of Abhinav Bharat at the instance of Lt. Colonel Purohit. Purohit is supposed to have bragged to a witness and shown him explosive RDX which, he is alleged to have got from some army operation in Kashmir. But at the same time there is also a statement showing Purohit's inability to get RDX. Yet residues of RDX were collected on a cotton swab from Sudhakar Chaturvedi's accommodation at Deolali. The learned counsel for the applicant Purohit contends that this was planted by a police officer who entered the quarters surreptitiously before actual seizure of the residue was made.