The supplementary chargesheet filed on Friday by the National Investigation Agency in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blasts case could be embarrassing for Maharashtra's ATS as the NIA has claimed that ATS ado
The supplementary chargesheet filed on Friday by the National Investigation Agency in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blasts case could be embarrassing for Maharashtra's ATS as the NIA has claimed that ATS adopted dubious methods to fulfil provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.
The NIA has raised doubts over applicability of MCOCA to the case, saying that ATS had invoked MCOCA provisions on the basis of involvement of the accused, Rakesh Dhawde, in two earlier blast cases in Parbhani and Jalna. The NIA has mentioned certain circumstances which make invoking MCOCA in this case questionable.
The NIA in its chargesheet has said that as far as the 2003 Parbhani bomb blasts are concerned, police had already filed a chargesheet against three persons in 2006. However ATS arrested Dhawde in that case on November 13, 2008 and filed a charge sheet against him within days. Similarly, in case of the 2004 Jalna bomb blasts, police had already filed a chargesheet against an accused in 2006 and a supplementary chargesheet was filed against four others in 2008. However, Dhawde was arrested in that case as well on November 15, 2008 and charge sheet was filed against him the same day, despite the fact that no accused was shown as wanted accused in the earlier chargesheets.
According to NIA, “On considering these dates of arrest and filing of charge sheet, it is apparent that there was hardly any time available to ATS Mumbai to collect evidence against the accused before filing of chargesheet. The said chargesheets were filed with the sole purpose of fulfilling the condition of enabling provisions of the MCOCA Act (because there should be more than one chargesheet against any of the accused in the case to invoke MCOCA in the case.)”
NIA further said, “The dubious methods adopted during investigation by ATS Mumbai become crystal clear from the disappearance of one of the main witnesses.
The CBI, during its investigation on the disappearance of the witness, Indore resident Dilip Patidar, had submitted findings against officers of the Mumbai ATS.
Patidar had allegedly disappeared, after being picked up by Mumbai ATS. On the basis of these points, the NIA concluded that no offence under the MCOCA was attracted in the instant case.
The case of the missing witness
According to Dilip Patidar’s family, he was picked up by Mumbai ATS on November 10, 2010 and taken to Mumbai, from which trip he never returned to Indore. His father approached local Khajrana police station on November 14, 20 and 22 to lodge a missing person complaint, but the local police refused to register their complaint. Later the family filed a habeas corpus petition with the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court, which was admitted on November 24. The court set up a joint team from the Maharashtra ATS and Indore police to locate him. The joint team submitted its report saying that Patidar had gone into hiding.
In October 2010, the HC directed the CBI to investigate Patidar's missing case after which the second narrative emerged. According to the CBI investigation, he was in the ATS’ “illegal custody” from November 10 to November 20, 2008 when he made his last phone call. The CBI also rejected the ATS claim that Patidar was allowed to stay with his friend during his questioning by the ATS as the investigation agency had no record of this friend's address or contact number. The CBI also disbelieved the ATS’ claim that Patidar was allowed to make phone calls to family and friends as it found that he had made only the one last phone call during his detention by the ATS. He neither made a second call nor received any call, the CBI concluded.
