Mumbai: The special NIA court dismissed now-acquitted accused Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur’s allegations of torture and ill-treatment by investigating officers. Thakur, through her lawyer has consistently maintained that she was illegally taken into custody from Surat, brought to Mumbai, and subjected to merciless beating, torture, and ill-treatment by ATS officers. Her lawyer argued that these actions have led to her ongoing health issues.The judge noted that while the issue of ill-treatment was raised at the earliest stages of the case, including during her remand, no evidence was presented to support the claims. The judge pointed out that Thakur had availed of remedies at the time, but they did not result in a favorable outcome. The judge further noted that investigating officers had denied the allegations of torture during cross-examination.Crucially, the court referenced a previous decision by the Supreme Court in a 2011 appeal which had already rejected her claims of illegal custody, torture, and detention. The Supreme Court’s observations were that Thakur, when produced before the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) in Nashik, had not made any complaint of ill-treatment.The judge also noted that she had not challenged the remand order and that an application regarding illegal detention was turned down by the CJM.The judge further mentioned that she had voluntarily gone to the ATS office for inquiry and was accompanied by a person named Bhim Bhai Pasricha, suggesting she was not in illegal custody at the time.While Thakur’s lawyer argued that the Supreme Court’s decision was made before the prosecution witnesses’ evidence was recorded, and that the new evidence should be considered, the special NIA court concluded that, “except the bare contention, there is no evidence brought to my notice and hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission”.In stark contrast to the stance on the torture allegations, the judge expressed serious doubts about the evidence of articles seized by the ATS at Thakur’s instance. The judge found the prosecution’s narrative to be unbelievable, stating that “a prudent man would not digest the story that, an accused would keep several articles with …her, so as to implicate…herself as an accused”.