Malegaon Blast Trial
While Pragya says she’s not well, co-accused says has to attend religious function – both skip court. Court observes 'Without attending court, he wants to discharge religious duties’
Pragya Singh Thakur through her advocates, sought exemption from attending court proceedings on Thursday, stating that she was suffering from high BP, was unwell and hospitalized and therefore could not come to court, but would try to come the next hearing.
Her co-accused in the Malegaon blast case – Swami Amrutanand Dev Tirth alias Shankaracharya - also sought exemption. He told court in his exemption plea filed through his advocate, that he is presently residing at Jammu and Kashmir and 'participating and coordinating the Khir-Bhavani Mahotsav', which, he explained, is 'a religious ceremony where his personal presence is required.'
The plea further stated that 'considering the religious ceremony and the distance from Jammu and Kashmir to Mumbai', he may be exempted from attending court. He also cited it being 'end of holiday season', that he was unable to get either air or rail tickets for the travel. Stating that he had booked a ticket for June 13, he sought exemption till then, assuring the court that he would attend it on June 14.
Special judge VS Padalkar, allowing Pragya's exemption plea, noted that she had not produced any supporting documents regarding her being unwell and if she does not attend court the next day, there would be consequences.
On Amrutanand's exemption plea, the court observed in its order, “It seems A10 (Amrutanand) does not want to attend court despite directions..It seems that without attending court he wants to discharge his religious duties at various places. The grounds do not seem to be just, good and reasonable for grant of exemption.”
Judge Padalkar continued, “From the beginning of trial, exemption granted to A10 on some ground or other. Now he is bent on remaining absent by attending religious functions..three to four months ago, he sought exemption on grounds of Chaturmas (holy period of four months) . In fact he is facing trial under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) and it is his duty to remain present before court.”
Regarding his not getting travel tickets, the court observed that it is none of its business to see if accused gets journey tickets or not. Judge Padalkar granted him exemption for Thursday, but ordered that he be present the next day, that is, Friday, or 'face consequences' as 'necessary order will be passed'.
The court had passed an order on May 17 this year that the accused must attend court at least once every week as it had found that their exemption pleas were casually drafted with grounds repeating every time.
The court also issued a bailable warrant of Rs. 5,000 on a retired Executive Magistrate who was to depose as a witness in the matter and also did not present himself. He was the only witness to depose and the court is a special court dealing only with the Malegaon case and one other case. NIA officer informed court that the witness had assured the agency only a day before that he would attend court, but was not reachable on his phone on Thursday.
The court also pulled up the NIA stating that till date the agency has been bringing only one witness each day and on some days witnesses do not appear, that at this rate the matter cannot be decided expeditiously as directed by the Supreme Court. The court directed that the copy of the order be forwarded to higher authorities in the agency.