MCOCA in Malegaon case looks ‘shaky’: HC

A day after it granted bail to two accused in the Malegaon blasts case of 2008, the Bombay High Court on Thursday observed that the application of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in the case appears “shaky”. The court was hearing a bail application filed by Lt Col Prasad Purohit.

Purohit’s lawyer Shrikant Shivde argued that the attack that killed six people on September 29, 2008 cannot be termed a terror attack as the motive behind it was to avenge the ouster of Hindus from Kashmir and not striking terror in the minds of people. “Even the (MCOCA) sanctioning order does not say that I (Purohit) have committed any terror attack. I have only aided and abetted,” Shivde told the court. He added that the charge of aiding and abetting against Purohit may be perceived as a continued unlawful activity but not an organised crime.

“(Application of) MCOCA may be a bit shaky. The enactment was for different purposes. We will have to see if it applies or not,” Justice AM Thipsay said.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the attack that killed former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, Shivde said the apex court had held that the motive behind the attack was revenge that the LTTE sought after Gandhi made a statement that he would send the Indian Peace Keeping Force to disarm the LTTE. Although the suicide bomb attack driven by personal animosity killed many others, it was not a terror attack and the Malegaon blast was similar in nature, Shivde told the court. Justice Thipsay, however, said, “The difference lies in the intention.”

The allegedly provocative statements made by Purohit in meetings held in Bhopal, Panchmarhi and Faridabad regarding a separate Hindu nation was a “political discussion” and not a conspiracy, Shivde argued. He said Purohit discussed the plight of Hindus displaced from Kashmir and there was nothing wrong in that. These statements, Shivde said, stemmed from strong emotions similar to those of people in Mumbai who wanted the perpetrators of the 26/11 terror attacks to be met with the same fate.

“Forming a Hindu Rashtra is their (prosecution) interpretation. This was not to overawe the government. They have just made a mountain of a molehill,” Shivde argued. The court will hear further arguments in the case on August 9.