Bombay High Court allows victim to intervene in plea filed by Lt. Col. Purohit

Source:-https://www.theindianwire.com

Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayed Bilal, a victim in the Malegaon blast case, appeal to the Bombay High Court in a plea filed by Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, one of the accused in the case.

The Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik found that if the action was approved, there would be no discrimination caused to Purohit. The court ordered the requisite changes to be carried out immediately.

Bilal had attempted to interfere in the appeal put forward by Purohit in order to quash the criminal proceedings against him.

Bilal told the court that he had been permitted to intervene before the Special National Investigation Agency Court in Mumbai in the trial proceedings. He added that he was also allowed to become a party to the bail applications filed before the Special Court and the High Court by some of the accused in the Malegaon case, including Purohit.

He prayed that his rights and position as a victim should be recognised by the Court in criminal proceedings, mentioned through Senior Advocate BA Desai along with Advocate Kritika Agarwal.

His counsel, relying on statues and case laws, argued that the rights of victims have been protected by the Court by allowing the survivor to interfere in the proceedings brought by the accused.

On the other hand, through his lawyer, Advocate Neela Gokhale, Purohit objected to such interference by the victim.

Gokhale pointed out that the petition of Purohit before the High Court seeks to contest NIA’s decision to prosecute him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (UAP) Act without the central government’s prior permission pursuant to Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

She added that Purohit is currently a member of the Armed Forces and was exercising his duty as an army officer even when he was charged with the offences under the UAP Act.

She argued that whether or not the NIA had received prior approval from the Central Government, which only the NIA could address, was the limited question on which his plea would be argued before the High Court.

She further argued that Bilal, who claims to be the victim, is neither a significant party nor a necessary party, because he is not in a position to assist or contribute to the Court of Appeal on the issues raised in the plea.

She concluded that his appeal for intervention was merely a misuse of the suit brought with a view to delaying the hearing of the plea put forward by Purohit.

After a brief hearing, the Court ordered the parties to present their written arguments, if necessary, and reserved the matter for order.