NEW DELHI: After spending seven years in jail on terror charges for their alleged role in the Malegaon blasts, former Military Intelligence officer Lt Col Shrikant Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya Thakur got relief as the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that there was no evidence to book them under the stringent MCOCA.

The court said the duo, along with four other accused, were entitled to bail but left it to the trial court to decide their bail pleas. It said if the accused moved bail petitions, the trial judge should decide these in a month. This case is being probed by National Investigation Agency (NIA), which had ruled out the role of jihadi elements in the Malegaon blasts and had blamed right-wing outfit ‘Abhinav Bharat’.

A bench of Justices F M I Kalifulla and A M Sapre stopped short of quashing charges under MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act) against them, saying the investigating agency might unearth some evidence to establish that they were running an organized crime syndicate.

“We cannot also rule out the possibility of the evidence based on the investigation by the prosecuting agency to come out with reliable material in support of such nexus to be shown with an accused or with the crime in respect of the earlier two cases, namely, Parbhani and Jalna. We cannot, therefore… reach at a conclusion to the effect that MCOCA was not attracted and, therefore, they should be discharged,” the bench said.

The court said trial in the case should be initiated as soon as possible and asked the chief justice of Bombay High Court to appoint a special judge for the purpose.

“It is stated that no officer has been posted for the special court as on date. We, therefore, request the chief justice of the High Court of Bombay to pass appropriate orders either for posting these cases before a learned judge by way of special order or appoint a presiding officer exclusively for deciding these cases in order to ensure speedy trial,” it said.

But the bench upheld MCOCA charges against Rakesh Dhawade, who is also facing prosecution in the 2003 Parbhani blasts and the Jalna blasts of 2004 in addition to Malegaon blast.

“Insofar as the rest of the appellants are concerned, for the purpose of invoking Section 21(4)(b), namely, to consider their claim for bail, it can be held that for the present juncture with the available material on record, it is not possible to show any nexus of the appellants who have been proceeded against for their involvement in Malegaon blast with the two earlier cases, namely, Parbhani and Jalna. There is considerable doubt about their involvement in Parbhani and Jalna and, therefore, they are entitled for their bail applications to be considered on merits,” it said.