"Stoutly denying" the conclusions of a US based forensic report, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has urged the Bombay High Court not to entertain a plea filed by activist Rona Wilson, who while citing the forensic report has claimed that the alleged incriminating material found in his computer was "planted" much prior to his arrest.
Notably, Wilson a prime accused in the Bhima-Koregaon violence case had moved the HC earlier this year seeking an SIT probe into the contentions raised by a US forensic firm that concluded that the alleged evidence relied upon by the NIA against him was planted by someone in his computer.
Apart from Wilson, his co-accused Shoma Sen has also moved the HC citing the same report and has sought discharge from the case.
The NIA in an affidavit filed before a bench led by Justice Sambhaji Shinde stated that the conclusions in the forensic report cannot be accepted as it doesn't specify as to who planted these incriminating letters in Wilson's computer.
The affidavit filed Vikram Khalate, the superintendent of police, NIA through special public prosecutor Sandesh Patil, stated that it was for Wilson to first identify and clarify as to who planted the alleged evidence against him since he has made the claims.
The central agency has further said that the onus of explaining and identifying when and how evidence was planted was on Wilson.
"As far as Wilson's contention is concerned regarding the fabrication of documents, planting of false evidence and scant regards to procedure established by law, the same is uncalled for at this stage which is premature," the agency has claimed.
Further disputing Wilson's contentions, the affidavit by Khalate, adds, "I stoutly deny the report. I say since the contention made in the petition regarding the facts are not admitted by me, they are disputed questions of fact and hence cannot be entertained in the present writ petition.
The affidavit further goes on to read that the contentions raised in the plea by Wilson were quite "vague" since the US based firm itself isn't sure who planted the evidence.
"The firm has no business in giving such an opinion on a sub-judice matter, especially when it hasn't taken any permission from the concerned court. It appears that the present petition is only to delay the trial," the affidavit reads.
