08 bomb attacks: 2 Sanatan Sanstha men held guilty

The bombs had targeted a Panvel theatre screening the film Jodhaa Akbar,the Vishnudas Bhave auditorium in Vashi and the Gadkari Rangayatan in Thane,both of which were showing a Marathi play titled Amhi Pachpute.

While seven people were injured in the Thane explosion,the Panvel blast did not hurt anyone and the Vashi bomb failed to explode.

The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad had accused Ramesh Gadkari,Vikram Bhave,Santosh Angre,Hemant Chalke,Mangesh Nikam and Hari Bhau Divekar all of them Sevaks of Sanatan Sanstha,a sister organisation of Hindu Janjagruti Samiti of conspiracy and planting the bombs as part of a statewide campaign against the film and the play.

But the court found only Gadkari and Bhave guilty under various sections of the Explosives Act,Explosive Substances Act,the Destruction of Property Act and laws relating to conspiracy,among others. They were acquitted of charges of attempt to murder and under the UAPA. The four others were acquitted of all charges. The sentencing of Gadkari and Bhave is expected on Tuesday.

According to the prosecution,Gadkari,50,an electrical engineer,gave up his profession to run a small shop in Panvel.

He came in contact with some sevaks from Sanatan Sanstha and after being impressed by the groups ashram,sold his shop and became a full-time member. He lived in the ashram and allegedly trained Nikam and Bhave to make bombs. Gadkaris savings were allegedly used to fund the operations.

Bhave,26,handled his fathers business in Warsai village in Raigad. Explosives were seized from his residence and Bhave was arrested from Wadala. He is also accused in another case of assault inside the ashram.

Although the police had claimed to have found strong evidence against the accused such as two revolvers,a huge quantity of ammonium nitrate powder,20 detonators,19 gelatin sticks,timers,voltage meters,two radio circuits and remote controls,the court did not fully accept the prosecutions arguments.

The 1,020-page ATS chargesheet had claimed that all the explosives were of high intensity. Fortunately,the bombs were not placed strategically,reducing their intensity. Only injuries were caused,and at one place the bomb did not explode, said an officer involved in the investigations.

The case was primarily built on circumstantial evidence. Once let off on the UAPA charges,the court had to prove the accused guilty only on the basis of eyewitness accounts and other such circumstantial evidence, said special Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian.