A special court in Mumbai on Thursday gave its verdict in the Malegaon blast case. The court acquitted all the seven accused in this case, including Pragya Thakur and Colonel Purohit. Many opposition leaders have objected to this decision of the court. Meanwhile, a revelation has been made which is surprising everyone. In fact, one of the 39 witnesses in this case has made a shocking revelation. One of these witnesses said that he was pressured to implicate Yogi Adityanath and many other people from RSS and right-wing organizations.
Let us inform you that Milind Joshi, who was a government witness in the Malegaon blast case, told the court that he was pressurised to take the names of Yogi Adityanath and RSS. For this, he was kept in custody for several days. Let us tell you that Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath was the firebrand face of Hindutva even at that time. According to the witness, efforts were being made to implicate Yogi Adityanath and Mohan Bhagwat in the Malegaon blast case. Meanwhile, Mehboob Mujawar, who was the investigating officer in this case, said that the case was presented in such a way that the narrative of saffron terrorism could be established.
According to reports, Mehboob Mujawar said that the aim of the then government was to end the politics of Hindutva. In this case, government witness Milind Joshi was under pressure to take the names of Aseemanand and Yogi Adityanath. For this, the investigating officers even tortured him. It is noteworthy that on Thursday a special court in Mumbai gave its verdict in the Malegaon blast case. The court acquitted all the seven accused in this case.
Former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahgirkar, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Sameer Kulkarni and Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi were accused in the Malegaon blast case. All of them were acquitted by the court. The court commented during the verdict that terrorism has no religion. And no religion justifies violence. The court said that the investigating agencies have not been able to provide any concrete evidence in the case. It is not right to form an opinion based only on stories.