Intervention Application Malicious, Filed For Publicity, Dismiss With Exemplary Cost: Pragya Thakur Replies To Malegaon Blast Victim's Father
In her reply to Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal's application before the Special NIA Court, Pragya Singh Thakur has stated that the said application was filed with malicious intent and for seeking publicity. Furthermore, the reply states that such frivolous applications should be dealt with sternly and dismissed with exemplary cost.
Nisar's son Sayyed Azhar was killed in the blast took place on Bhikku Chowk, Malegaon in 2008 killing six and injuring over a hundred people. In an intervention application, Nisar sought directions to restrain Pragya Singh Thakur from contesting elections.
The NIA has also filed its reply and stated that this matter relates to the Election Commission, so the NIA has no jurisdiction.
Bilal's application argued that Pragya was enlarged on bail on the pretext that she is unwell and "a patient of breast cancer". On the contrary, she has been seen participating in various programs and giving objectionable & instigating speeches since her release from jail, the application states.
Pragya, who is BJP's candidate for Lok Sabha 2019 from the Bhopal seat, stated in her reply that the said intervention application was maintainable and should be rejected.
"There is no provision in the Representation of People's Act, 1951 which disqualifies a candidate from contesting election if criminal case is pending against her. The only bar is envisaged under Section 8 of the RP Act.
It is very important to appreciate that S.8(4) of the said act says that if a person who is a member of parliament or state legislature is convicted, disqualification shall not take effect, if the appeal or application for revision is filed in respect of conviction and sentenced within 90 days from conviction and the said conviction or sentence is stayed by the Court."
As to questions raised in Bilal's application about her health, Pragya's reply states that she was suffering from breast cancer and after her release from jail, she was operated upon in Ram Manohar Lohia Medical Institute, Lucknow.
The reply also states that Pragya was granted bail not only on health grounds but also based on the fact that there was no prima facie case against her and the motorcycle used in the blast "was not in her possession much prior to the incident."
Pragya whose motorcycle was used in the blast was charged by the Special NIA Court with murder, attempt to murder, voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, promoting enmity between different groups and punishment of criminal conspiracy.
Under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, she has been charged under Section 3 (punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property), Section 4 (punishment for attempt to cause explosion), Section 5 (punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances), Section 6 (punishment of abettors) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and relevant sections of the Arms Act.
As to prayer in the application seeking her presence in court during the trial, Pragya's reply states that she was present while the charges were being framed and currently the examination witnesses is taking place. The accused will remain present when directed by the court, not when the intervenor wants her to, reply states.
Finally, the accused sought exemplary cost to be imposed upon the intervenor for filing a frivolous application, "taking liberty with the truth and abusing process of law."