Mumbai, Jun 7: Newly elected BJP MP and 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case accused Pragya Singh Thakur Friday appeared before a special court here.
It was Thakur's first appearance before the NIA court, which is conducting trial in the 11-year-old case, after being elected to Lok Sabha from Bhopal last month.
The last time she had shown up in the court was during framing of charges in the case in October last year.
Special NIA Judge V S Padalkar last month directed all the accused, including Thakur, to appear before the court at least once a week.
The judge then said an exemption from appearance would be granted only if cogent reasons were submitted.
On Monday, the special court rejected application of Thakur, who defeated Congress veteran Digvijay Singh from Bhopal, for exemption from appearance in the court this week.
The 49-year-old Hindutva activist had sought the exemption for completing formalities relating to her election to Parliament, but the court said her presence is necessary at this stage in the case.
On Thursday, her lawyer Prashant Magoo told the court she is suffering from high blood pressure and is unable to travel to Mumbai from Bhopal.
The court granted her exemption for the day and asked her to appear before it Friday.
"Today (Thursday), the exemption is granted. But she will have to appear on Friday else she will have to face consequences," the judge said.
Thakur was hospitalised for a stomach ailment in Bhopal Wednesday night and discharged early Thursday, her close aide Upma told PTI.
The court is recording the testimony of witnesses in the case.
Seven persons, including Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, are facing trial in the case.
Six people were killed and over 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in Malegaon, a power-loom town in north Maharashtra, on September 29, 2008.
According to police, the motorbike was registered in Thakur's name and that led to her arrest in 2008.
The Bombay High Court granted her bail in 2017.
The accused are facing trial under various sections of the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code and the Explosive Substances Act.
They have been charged under UAPA sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act).
They are also facing charges under IPC sections 120(b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153(a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups).
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday expressed disappointment over the non-production of witnesses in the ongoing trial against Ashish Mishra, son of former Union minister Ajay Mishra, and others in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the status report filed before it by the Uttar Pradesh government has not assigned any reason whatsoever for the non-production of witnesses.
It noted that no witnesses have been examined in the trial for the last two months.
"We direct the presiding judge to take lawful measures to secure the presence of witnesses," the bench said.
It asked the trial judge to make an endeavour to conclude the trial in a time-bound manner, and also to file a status report before it.
The trials in two cases related to the incident are going on before a court in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench noted that in the first case, out of 131 witnesses to be examined, 44 have been examined, 15 have been discharged and 72 are still to be produced.
In the second FIR, out of 35 witnesses, 26 have been examined and nine were left, it said.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Ashish Mishra, said that as per the latest status report filed by Uttar Pradesh, 44 witnesses have been examined so far in the first FIR.
"No witnesses have been examined in the last two months," Dave said.
He argued that the last status report filed by the state in March also said that 44 witnesses had been examined.
"What have you done from March till today?" the bench asked the counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh.
The state's counsel said that 3-4 witnesses were summoned for the recording of their deposition during the trial.
The bench said at least 7-8 witnesses should be summoned instead of three or four for a day, so that even if some of them do not turn up, the trial court could proceed with the recording of statements of those appearing before it.
The top court also wondered how official witnesses can remain absent during the trial.
"We are disappointed to note that the so-called status report does not assign any reason whatsoever for non-production of witnesses...," the bench said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the relatives of the farmers who were allegedly mowed down in the incident, said the apex court will have to do something regarding the manner in which the trial was going on.
The bench noted that besides the two FIRs, another FIR was registered in October last year concerning alleged witness intimidation.
It said that, as per the state's status report, the chargesheet was filed against the main accused in that case.
The bench noted that the status report reveals that, as far as Ashish Mishra is concerned, his alleged role in the third case is still being investigated.
The top court directed the investigating officer of the third case to conclude the pending probe and ensure that the appropriate report is filed before the concerned court within four weeks.
The bench posted the next hearing in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case for July.
On October 3, 2021, eight people, including four farmers, were killed in Tikunia in Lakhimpur Kheri district during a protest by farmers against Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya's visit to the area.
Four farmers were mowed down by a sports utility vehicle. A driver and two BJP workers were then allegedly lynched by angry farmers. A journalist also died in the violence.
In one of the cases, the trial court in December 2023 framed charges against Mishra and 12 others for alleged murder, criminal conspiracy and under other penal laws in the case of the farmers' deaths, paving the way for the trial.
