New Delhi, January 10: The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind has moved the Supreme Court seeking the monitoring of the 2006 Malegaon blast case which, it alleged, could have been the handiwork of the same saffron terror group that carried out the September 21, 2008 blasts.
Though the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) had chargesheeted nine Muslim youths before the 2006 case was handed over to the CBI, Jamiat president Maulana Arshad Madani pointed out in his writ petition that there were many similarities between the two blasts.
Both the blasts took place on days of festivities and in areas where Muslims were expected to gather in large numbers after offering prayers. While the bomb in the 2008 blast was planted on a motorcycle, the bomb in the 2006 case was planted on a bicycle. The petition had come up for hearing before a bench presided by then Chief Justice K.G.
Balakrishnan on December 5, 2008 but Jamiat was unable to convince the bench. With the bench not inclined to entertain the petition, Madani’s counsel had withdrawn the petition.
It was pointed out in the petition that a bicycle was purchased purchased in the name of one Ramesh Thakur and another in the name of Badal Yadav and both the names seemed fictitious and non- existent.
The petitioner, Madani and two others from the organisation, said that they believed that the name Ramesh Thakur was coined from Pragya Singh Thakur and Ramesh Shivaji Upadhyay.
The ATS had zeroed in on Pragya Singh Thakur in the 2008 blast because the LML Freedom bike, used to park the explosive, was registered in her name. Several other arrests took place after that.
Interrogation of the suspects had allegedly revealed their involvement in some other blasts in the country as well. The allegation by the Jamiat had only added up to the list.
The blast in 2006 took place near a Masjid after the Friday prayers on the day of Shab- e- Barat on September 8. In 2008, it took place two days before Eid and on the night of Shab- e- Qadar after Isha and Taravi — night prayers in the month of Ramadan — on September 21, the petitioner pointed out, while drawing parallel between the two cases.
The ATS had arrested nine youths for the 2006 blast and had named five others who were absconding. It had filed a chargesheet in the case on December 20, 2006 — the day the case was handed over to the CBI for investigation, the petitioners said in the writ filed through Supreme Court lawyer Anis Suhrawardy.
The ATS, on the other hand, had stated in the charge- sheet that the blast was triggered in a Muslim area to “ infuriate Muslims’’ in an attempt to trigger riots in the area which had earlier witnessed a riot in 2001. The bicycles were purchased from Hindu shop owners to deflect investigations.
The Jamait Ulama- I- Hind, however, felt otherwise. It had requested the apex court to order an independent investigation under a retired judge.
There were reasons to believe that Hindu fundamentalist forces were attempting to disturb communal harmony but police had ignored several incidents in which fatal explosions had taken place in Hindu homes, it said.
BLAST SIMILARITIES
Both blasts took place on days of festivities where Muslims gathered in huge numbers to offer prayers
The bomb in the 2008 blast was planted on a motorcycle and the bomb in the 2006 blast was planted on a bicycle
The ATS zeroed in on Pragya Singh Thakur in the 2008 blast case as the vehicle, used to park the explosive, was registered in her name
The ATS had arrested nine youths for the 2006 blast before the case was handed over to the CBI moved
–Agencies