Pragya Singh Thakur

MUMBAI: A retired bomb squad officer who had inspected the site hours after the blast at Malegaon in 2008 identified in court a certificate he had given saying a squad dog had signalled the presence of explosive substances on the scattered pieces of an LML Freedom motorcycle, on which, investigators had said, bomb was planted.

The anti-terrorism squad (ATS), the first investigating agency in case, had said the bike belonged to prime accused Pragya Singh Thakur , now an MP. The National Investigation Agency , which took over the case, had given her a clean chit, saying her co-accused (absconding) Ramji Kalsangra was using the bike and she was not connected to it.

The retired officer of the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad (BDDS), the 121st witness to depose, told the special NIA court that in the wee hours of September 30, 2008, he saw spare parts of vehicles, including a bicycle and motorcycle, and essence bottles and other materials scattered at the spot where the blast had taken place. His report said a handler and a dog, Sean, were present. The trained dog indicated the presence of explosive substances on the scattered bike parts.

Court objects to query on dog bark

Sean subsequently retired from the force and died a few years ago. During cross-examination, defence advocate Ranjeet Sangle asked why the report hadn't described any other article from the spot apart from the bike. The witness answered that the sniffer dog had given a signal only there, and denied suggestion that the handler had not shown the dog the other material at the spot.

"Can it be said the other scattered things did not have explosive substance, or the dog couldn't point it out?" asked Sangle. "The dog only barked at the LML motorcycle (scattered parts)," replied the witness.

The retired officer said the dog only gives a signal and it is for the handler to interpret it.

When Sangle asked how the dog had barked, the court took objection. Reacting to the court's repeated objection to the line of questioning, Sangle said court was being hostile. Recording the exchange, the court said: "The court asks how it can be answered, how is the barking of the dog to be recorded." Sangle said he wanted to know how many times the dog had barked, once or twice. The witness said he did not know.

