11-20-2008, 12:37 AM
Malegaon probe: âPurohit could even be eliminated by ATSâ
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Opposing the prosecutions' plea for a seven-day remand for further investigations into the case, Srikant Shivde, appearing for the accused told the judge that the ATS was trying to implicate him in a false case by threatening Date.
The counsel alleged that Purohit, who had a distinguished service record in the army, was being victimised for political reasons and <b>he could even be eliminated by ATS because he was in possession of Intelligence data of a sensitive nature pertaining to the SIMI and ISI operations, which could embarrass some quarters. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Purohit in 2-day ATS custody
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sakaal Times
Thursday, November 20th, 2008 AT 12:11 AM
Some perhaps do not want the exposure of dirty laundry. (linking high profile Indian terrorist supporters with Pakistani terrorist outfits?) That's why Purohit and others have to be silenced?
Congress wants to dominate or manipulate the media, politics, legislative power, etc. with every possible mean. Is this whole circus meant to start with getting hold of their next target, the army? By first parallyzing the army morale and then trying to gradually put vote sensitive puppets on crucial positions?
The prosecutor submitted that after Purohitâs name cropped up in the Malegaon blast case, Date lodged a complaint against Purohit with regard to the licence on November 4. The prosecutor argued that it was necessary to investigate as to from where the licence and the rifle were obtained and so police custody of Purohit was required.
Purohitâs counsel Shrikant Shivade, arguing against remand to police custody, contended that if this had been a case of forgery, then Date had been possessing a weapon without a valid licence. This was a much more serious offence but the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had not registered any offence against Date. The ATS was responsible for allowing Date to hold the weapon without valid licence and could not claim any extra-judicial immunity. Who had given ATS authority to exonerate Date, he asked.
He argued that false cases were being slapped against his client to secure continuous custody. Shivade also told the court that his client feared for his life from Haryana police and CBI who wanted to take him into custody. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Opposing the prosecutions' plea for a seven-day remand for further investigations into the case, Srikant Shivde, appearing for the accused told the judge that the ATS was trying to implicate him in a false case by threatening Date.
The counsel alleged that Purohit, who had a distinguished service record in the army, was being victimised for political reasons and <b>he could even be eliminated by ATS because he was in possession of Intelligence data of a sensitive nature pertaining to the SIMI and ISI operations, which could embarrass some quarters. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Purohit in 2-day ATS custody
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sakaal Times
Thursday, November 20th, 2008 AT 12:11 AM
Some perhaps do not want the exposure of dirty laundry. (linking high profile Indian terrorist supporters with Pakistani terrorist outfits?) That's why Purohit and others have to be silenced?
Congress wants to dominate or manipulate the media, politics, legislative power, etc. with every possible mean. Is this whole circus meant to start with getting hold of their next target, the army? By first parallyzing the army morale and then trying to gradually put vote sensitive puppets on crucial positions?
The prosecutor submitted that after Purohitâs name cropped up in the Malegaon blast case, Date lodged a complaint against Purohit with regard to the licence on November 4. The prosecutor argued that it was necessary to investigate as to from where the licence and the rifle were obtained and so police custody of Purohit was required.
Purohitâs counsel Shrikant Shivade, arguing against remand to police custody, contended that if this had been a case of forgery, then Date had been possessing a weapon without a valid licence. This was a much more serious offence but the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had not registered any offence against Date. The ATS was responsible for allowing Date to hold the weapon without valid licence and could not claim any extra-judicial immunity. Who had given ATS authority to exonerate Date, he asked.
He argued that false cases were being slapped against his client to secure continuous custody. Shivade also told the court that his client feared for his life from Haryana police and CBI who wanted to take him into custody. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->