The National Investigation Agency (NIA), however, told a bench comprising Justices R K Agarwal and M M Shantanagoudar it had not found "sufficient evidence" to prosecute accused Pragya Singh Thakur in the case.
In an affidavit filed in the apex court on a plea by Purohit, who is seeking bail, the NIA said it had not objected to bail being granted to Thakur as it had not found sufficient evidence against her.
The doctrine of parity was not applicable "since there are several incriminating circumstances" against Purohit which prove "his deep involvement and complicity in the crime", the NIA claimed.
The apex court today sought a response from the Maharashtra government on a plea challenging the Bombay High Court's order granting bail to Thakur and listed the matter for a hearing on August 14, along with Purohit's bail plea.
In its affidavit, the NIA said during the probe it examined some defence personnel and their statements were referred to in the charge sheet.
It added Mumbai's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had obtained sanction under Section 45(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act before filing the charge sheet and Purohit's contention that the sanctioning authority had not followed the procedure could be considered during the trial.
"At this stage, it would be premature to come to any conclusion about the procedure followed by the sanctioning authority," the affidavit said.
Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayed Bilal, father of one of the blast victims, has sought a stay on the high court's April 25 order granting bail to Thakur. The court had granted her the relief saying there was "no prima facie evidence against her".
The high court, however, had refused bail to Purohit.
The apex court had on May 5 sought a response from the NIA and Maharashtra on Purohit's bail plea.
A Special MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) court had earlier ruled that the Anti-Terrorist Squad had wrongly applied the MCOCA in the case against Thakur, Purohit and nine others.
The 4,000-page charge sheet had alleged that Malegaon was selected as the blast target because of a sizeable Muslim population there. It named Thakur, Purohit and co-accused Swami Dayanand Pandey as the key conspirators.
The charge sheet had further alleged it was Pandey who had instructed Purohit to arrange for the explosive RDX, while Thakur owned a motorcycle which was used in the blast.
Rakesh Dhawde, Ramesh Upadhyay, Shyamlal Sahu, Shivnarain Kalsangra, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Jagdish Mhatre and Sameer Kulkarni were the other accused in the case.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
