The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea by Sameer Kulkarni, arrested for his alleged involvement in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, claiming lack of the sanction for prosecution by the NIA from the Central government under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar told the counsel, representing Kulkarni, that the apex court was not keen to interfere with the Bombay High Court order, which had dismissed his plea.
Six persons were killed and nearly 100 injured when a bomb strapped to a motorcycle exploded in Malegaon town in Nashik district in 2008.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, along with advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing Kulkarni, contended that the prosecution has not obtained sanction under Section 45(2) of UAPA. In this backdrop the charges under the UAPA cannot be sustained, he contended.
"We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment," the bench said.
Divan argued that when the matter was handed over to the NIA, there ought to have been a sanction by the Centre. However, the bench refused to interfere with the High Court judgment.
In April, the court had stayed proceedings against Kulkarni before the special court.
Kulkarni, one of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, challenged the trial in the special NIA court, Mumbai, saying that the agency lacked the valid sanction granted by the competent authority in accordance with Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Kulkarni contended that his primary case is that the trial cannot proceed in light of there being no valid prior sanction for prosecution of either the state government or the central government. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit were arrested in the same year with nine others for the blast conspiracy.
Kulkarni challenged correctness of the Bombay High Court's order June 28, 2023, which upheld the Mumbai's Special Court's order April 20, 2023, rejecting his plea with regard to absence of sanction.
The NIA claimed the present plea is the classic example of abuse of process of law by the petitioner, as the trial was on the verge of conclusion.