Malegaon blast accused Lt Colonel Shrikant Purohit on Friday moved the Supreme Court against Bombay High Court order rejecting his bail.
A bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar said that the petition will come up in regular course while rejecting the former lieutenant colonel's plea for an urgent hearing.
The Bombay High Court had last week granted bail to Sadhvi Pragya Thakur – who is also accused of plotting the blast – but denied the same to Lt Colonel Purohit. Lt Colonel Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya approached the High Court after a trial court rejected their bail plea last year.
Sadhvi Pragya and 44-year-old Purohit were arrested in 2008. While Sadhvi Pragya, also 44, who is suffering from cancer, is undergoing treatment a Madhya Pradesh hospital, Purohit is lodged in Taloja jail in Maharashtra.
The High Court had said that prima facie no case was made out against Pragya and asked her to furnish a cash surety of Rs 5 lakh and surrender her passport to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The NIA, which was handed over the probe from ATS, had given a clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya but had opposed Purohit's bail plea, noting that the charges levelled against Purohit are of serious and grave nature.
Also Read: DeQoded: The 2008 Malegaon Blasts Case
Purohit was the one who prepared a separate ‘Constitution’ for ‘Hindu Rashtra’ with a separate saffron colour flag.HC referring to NIA report
He also discussed taking revenge for the atrocities committed by the Muslims on Hindus. The HC had refused to accept Purohit’s contention that he had attended the meetings as part of a “covert military intelligence operation.”
The court pointed out the statements of the witnesses, that it was Purohit who said their right-wing group Abhinav Bharat should not be just a political party but should work as an organisation of extremists, having the capacity to eliminate persons opposing the same.
According to the investigating agencies, the blast was allegedly carried out by right-wing group Abhinav Bharat.
The NIA had opposed Purohit's bail plea and argued that there was evidence in the form of audio and video recordings, call data records and the statements of the witnesses which prove his involvement in the case.
According to the NIA, Purohit had allegedly taken active part in the conspiracy meetings and even agreed to arrange explosives to be used in the blast.
Purohit had argued that the NIA was "selective" in exonerating some accused persons and that the agency made him a "scapegoat" in the case.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)