“We readily agree that disclosure of this information could expose all these persons to uncalled for pressure, which could act as a major impediment in the investigation,” the Bench observed. The name of the officer who filed the FIR would also be kept under wraps, it ruled.

Bhushan had applied to the Special Cell for the documents last October.

DCP (Crime and Railways), to whom the request was forwarded, refused access on the ground that the lawyer could not seek the reports as his client, Rahman, was neither an “accused nor complainant” in the FIR. Rahman is named an accused in the blasts cases filed separately.

The police also reasoned that disclosing the reports would hamper the probe into the blasts. “These documents have a bearing upon terrorist crime perpetrated across the country, including Jaipur, Ahmedabad, and Mumbai. Extra caution is therefore advised in dealing with matters concerning this case,” Satyendra Garg, Additional CP (Crime) had submitted before the CIC.

But Habibullah said: “It’s an oft-repeated comment by the police and investigating agencies that they can’t part with documents under RTI when the investigation is still on. But CIC takes a different view — we consistently rule that though investigation is underway, the probe agency is bound to reveal documents that don’t impede the probe. This case is an example of our stand.”