A special court in Mumbai, while acquitting seven accused in the Malegaon 2008 blast case, acknowledged that former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar had made a statement claiming that senior ATS officials had directed him to arrest RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat.

However, the court did not consider this statement in its judgment.

Advocate Ranjit Sangle, representing accused Sudhakar Dhardwivedi, submitted Mujawar’s statement as evidence before the NIA court. Mujawar was one of the investigating officers in the Malegaon case.

Mujawar alleged that senior ATS officers instructed him to take Mohan Bhagwat into custody, but he refused to follow what he called an “illegal order,” as he found no evidence linking Bhagwat to the blast. Mujawar also claimed that he was falsely implicated in a case filed by the ATS before the Magistrate court in Solapur.

At one point, Mujawar publicly stated that two who wanted to be accused in the case, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, were dead. An enquiry was initiated regarding this statement, and as a result, Mujawar was not listed as a prosecution witness before the court.

Sangle presented certified copies of Mujawar’s statement from the Solapur Magistrate court, highlighting alleged torture by the ATS and political pressure aimed at implicating RSS members to justify a ban on the organisation.

Sangle argued, “Both the accused and witnesses spoke about torture. Due to extreme torture by ATS, Kalsangra and Dange died. This torture was politically motivated to ensure RSS members were named.”

The court reviewed statements from another ATS officer and confirmed Mujawar’s role as part of the ATS team investigating the Malegaon blast under his superior’s orders.

However, the special NIA court, while acquitting the accused, noted that Mujawar’s statement was made before a Magistrate court and not before Special Judge AK Lahoti.

Judge Lahoti stated, “The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (by Mujawar) cannot be treated as evidence because it was not recorded before this court. Simply submitting documents is not sufficient.”

The judge added, “Evidence must come from cogent and reliable testimony of the concerned witness. Moreover, these documents reflect his defense before a different court, not this one.”

Consequently, the court chose not to consider Mujawar’s statement in its verdict.

– Ends