The investigation in the Pune German Bakery blast case could take an ugly turn after a sting operation showed prosecution witnesses in the case claiming they had been tortured, tutored and coerced by Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) officers to depose before the court in a manner that would incriminate the main accused, Himayat Baig. Ironically, Baig was commuted a death sentence by the lower court, based on the false testimonies of these witnesses.

The revelation was made in the form of video footages shot by former journalist Ashish Khetan and his colleagues during a sting operation that was carried out by them in the last 15 days. The footage that was displayed at Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh at CST on Friday shows the witnesses confessing to the false testimonies they were forced to give in the court.
The witnesses Sayyed Abdul Rahim, Shaikh Rehan, Shaikh Gaus and Shaikh Nazeer Ateeq could also be seen saying how they and their families were threatened to give fake statements in the court and memorise statements that corroborated the theories propounded by the investigating agency.
During the confession the witnesses have also mentioned names of senior ATS officers, which include DIG (ATS) Sanjay Latkar, investigating officer Vinod Satav and others. Not only this, one of the witness, Shaikh Rehan claimed that Mr Latkar asked his uncle to pay a bribe of `3 lakhs so that they did not torture Rehan. At the same time, they demanded that he utter only what they (ATS) asked him to say in the court.
Mr Khetan said that Baig was held guilty on three counts. First, it was said RDX was found from his home. Secondly, he was accused of having a “jehadi” mindset and wanted to avenge the Muslims who were killed in the Gujarat communal riots as well as the demolition of Babri Masjid. The third count was that he was seen in Pune on the day of the blast, along with Yasin Bhatkal, the top operative of Indian Mujahideen (IM), responsible for the Pune German Bakery blast.
“Contrary to these three counts, the sting operation has exposed how the witnesses under duress gave the doctored testimony in the court to prove recovery of RDX and the so-called “jehadi” mindset of Baig. However, when the witness who testified that Baig was with him in Aurangabad on the day of the blast refused to succumb to pressure, the trial court judge dismissed him as an unreliable witness,” Mr Khetan pointed out.
According to Mr Khetan, the subversion of justice could not possibly be done by some lower-rank officers alone. Hence, the former journalist has dashed a letter to chief minister Prithviraj Chavan with all evidences. He is going to file an application with the bench of the Bombay high court that is hearing the matter.
The allegations also came as a blow to the reliability of the ATS, whose investigations in the Malegaon 2006 blast case was put in the dock by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in its chargesheet, after Swami Aseemanand confessed that right-wing organisations were behind the Malegaon blasts.
Strongly refuting the allegations levelled by Mr Khetan, ATS officers pointed to a “flawed premise” of the journalist’s allegations. “He says the five accused were key witnesses when they were not. This itself is the beginning of a series of erroneous claims. We had examined a total of 102 witnesses in the case. The statements of two of the witnesses were recorded before the magistrate, which cannot be taken back,” explained the officer.
The officer added that the third witness repeatedly failed to remain present before the court hearings. “One of the witness is also claiming that he was in Aurangabad with Himayat Baig, but we have technical evidence in the form of mobile tower records to prove that he was in the Parbhani district. The timing of this disclosure just two days before a crucial hearing in the court makes it suspect. The journalist is working at the behest of the defence lawyers,” another officer claimed.
When contacted, ATS chief Rakesh Maria refused to comment on the issue.
Maja Daruwala, the director of Common-wealth Human Rights Initiative, pointed out that threatening and torturing of witnesses is also a criminal offence. She also sought protection for witnesses to avoid their further exploitation.
“I don’t know the details of the allegations made against the ATS officers. But, the ATS officers are also public servants and the law has enough provision to prosecute them for obstruction of justice,” Ms Daruwala said. “If they are really guilty of breaking the law then they must get exemplary punishment,” she added.