A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court on Thursday (31 July, 2025) All seven accused acquitted In the case of Malegaon bomb blast in 2008, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Service of leader and former Parliament member (MP) Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit of Army.
In a detailed 1,036-page judgment which was given on 31 July and was made available on 1 August, Special Judge AK Lahoti noticed that although the bomb blast incident was undisputed, the prosecution had failed to produce reliable and acceptable evidence who established the involvement of the accused in the crime.
“I am fully aware of the suffering, frustration, and degree of trauma caused by the society on a large scale, especially, the families of the victims have become uncontrolled by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has become uncontrolled. However, the law does not convince the courts to be completely guilty on the basis of moral defects. The case has been revised to move forward on the popular or major public assumptions about the matter. However, he directed the state government to pay compensation of the deceased and 2 lakhs to the families of the deceased and ₹ 50,000 to those injured in the blast.
Editorial | By evidence alone: 2008 Malegaon blast on trial
What was the Malegaon blast case?
On September 29, 2008, during the Holy month of Ramadan, a powerful bomb blast, exploded through a communally sensitive city Malegaon MaharashtraAround 9:35 pm, an explosive device hid with a fake number plate (MH -15 -P -4572) in an LML Freedom motorcycle, which was exploded near Shakeel Goods Transport Company between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk. The explosion killed six people, injured 95 others, and caused significant damage to the surrounding property. An FIR was registered immediately, and the investigation was initially conducted by the Nasic Rural Police and Mumbai’s Anti -Terrorism Squad (ATS), then headed by Hemant Karkare, who was later killed 26/11 Mumbai attacksIn 2011, the case was shifted to the NIA as part of a comprehensive investigation in alleged Hindutva -related terror cases.
The charges against seven of the 14 persons arrested in connection with the blast were eventually removed. The remaining seven, Pragya Singh Thakur, Colonel Prasad Srikanth Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Raheerkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, and Sudhakar Chaturvedi were kept in the test. He was prosecuted for murder and criminal conspiracy under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Explosives Act, 1908.
According to the ATS, conspiracy meetings were allegedly held at various places under the leadership of Ms. Thakur. The agency also claimed that two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Denz had collected explosive equipment and placed it in a motorcycle boot in Ms. Thakur. However, several witnesses, including the service of army officers, later withdrew their statements in the court, alleging that their earlier testimony was given. Many of the accused also claimed that their confession was evacuated under torture. The NIA appeared in its final charge sheet to accept parts of these allegations, which Raksha extended its case.
The case attracted extensive attention even after the resignation of NIA Special Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian, which It is alleged that he was instructed to “soften” The accused and the agency was deliberately weakening the case against the so -called “Hindu Terror” network. After he left, Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over and prosecuted at his conclusion.
Why was the accused acquitted by the court?
Here are some major conclusions:
Thakur was not in the ‘conscious occupation’ of the motorcycle
The court said that Ms. Thakur was not in the “conscious occupation” of the LML Freedom motorcycle, in which explosive equipment was allegedly planted. Citing his renunciation of the physical world at least two years before the explosion, Judge Lahoti saw, “The prosecution did not give any evidence on the record to show that she was alert to the said motorcycle even after the physical world renunciation.
The judge further saw that there was neither eyewitness testimony nor the circumstantial evidence that Ms. Thakur had handed over the motorcycle to the co-accused or was involved in collecting the explosive device. Instead, he said that the explosives could be hung, placed near the motorcycle instead of fitting inside it. The judge said, “The explosion on the site and the damaged position of the motorcycle are not the decisive evidence of the explosives fitting inside the trunk, that is, under the motorcycle seat,” the judge noticed that the expert was testimony in testimony, saying that the probability of the device was externally attached or placed nearby.
Related to Torture allegations By the ATS, the court mentioned that Ms. Thakur had not made any such complaint when he was produced before a magistrate after his arrest before a magistrate on October 24, 2008. Citing the earlier order of the Supreme Court, the judge said that he neither made any allegations of sick treatment nor challenged the magistrate’s remand order at that time.
No official approval for Purohit’s cooperation with Abhinav India
The ATS alleged that the explosives used in the blast were RDX, claiming that it was bought during his posting by Colonel Purohit Jammu and KashmirHowever, the court found no evidence to install the source of explosives or how it was purchased or transported. It also noted the absence of any evidence as to who parked the motorcycle on the blast site or when, especially since the region was closed to Ramadan.
However, Judge Lahoti dismissed Mr. Purohit’s claim that his association with fringe organizations Abhinav Bharat As an intelligence officer, he was part of his official duties. He said that documentary evidence clearly established the role of Mr. Purohit as a trustee of Abhinav Bharat Trust. However, there was no material on records to suggest that his seniors had authorized him to join the trust or collect and use its money. “According to the ethos of military intelligence, the Commanding Officer or Discipline and Vigilance Branch were used to protect the interests of officers and sources. But after the arrest of A -9 (Mr. Purohit), no steps were taken to protect their officer. If he had really discharged duty under the color of his office, he had security for them.”
Absence of forensic evidence
Judge Lahoti noticed that the forensic expert who investigated the motorcycle, on which the explosive equipment was allegedly planted, had admitted that it was only his “estimate” that inspired him to conclude that the bomb was placed in a vehicle boot. No scientific tests were conducted to verify the placement of explosives. Accordingly, the judge said that in the absence of any primary forensic analysis, the testimony of the expert failed to inspire confidence.
“Current case (A) is a serious matter of bombing. In such a case, only anticipated work is not sufficient. Nor is it expected from the specialist when they are specially called on the spot to gather articles, to assist, to guide the investigating agency to complete some scientific tests. Some scientific tests should be done for some scientific tests.
Proportive laps in calls from Mcoca and UAPA
The ATS, who initially investigated the blast, participated in the conspiracy meetings related to the attack and execution in its case mainly in the case of the accused. Its major evidence included Confasseline Statements registered under the Organized Crime Act of Maharashtra Control (MCOCA), 1999. However, these confessions were inadvertently presented after Mcoca was removed from the case in 2016, when the NIA captured the investigation and demolished procedural laps in the call of the Act.
The court agreed, given that the approval to invite Mcoca was given without a “judicial brain application”. A uniform procedural lapse was found in the UAPA call. Judge Lahoti said that the then Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, Mumbai, Chitkala Zutshi, had failed to consult the investigating officer before approved under UAPA. As a result, legal estimates under the Act, such as the reverse burden of evidence, could not be implemented against the accused, the court held.
There is no qualification in this claim that the ATS directed the arrest of the RSS chief.
The court rejected Claim made by former ATS officer Mehboob Mujwar He was directed to arrest RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat in connection with the case. Judge Lahoti did not get any merit in advanced logic by the lawyer for the accused, Mr. Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, who had trusted the statements of Mr. Mujawar before the Solpur Court. Mr. Muzawar had alleged that senior ATS officials directed him to arrest Mr. Bhagwat to frame the case as “saffron terror”, but he said that he refused, no evidence was found to connect Mr. Bhagwat with the alleged crime.
However, the judge trusted the testimony of the then Chief Investigating Officer Mr. Mohan Kulkarni, who said that Mr. Mujwar was entrusted to detect only the absconding accused, Shri Ramji Kalsangra and Mr. Sandeep Denge, and he was never instructed to arrest the RSS leader. The court also said that Mr. Mujwar was neither listed nor investigated as witnesses from both sides. Accordingly, it was concluded that the statements presented were part of the defense of Mr. Muzawar in another case and there was no clear value in the current test.
what happens next?
Advocate Shahid Madem, representing Nisar Ahmed Haji Syed Bilal, who lost his son in the blast, told the media that the matter reflects the “important failures” from the NIA. He said that after reviewing the full decision of the victims, the families of the victims intend to find out legal measures by filing an independent appeal in the Bombay High Court.
Meanwhile, political pressure is increasing to file its appeal on the Maharashtra government, as it followed to be acquitted 2006 Mumbai train blast caseTwelve Muslim men were acquitted after spending 19 years in prison, the High Court issued observation on the use of torture during the investigation. The state had shifted the Supreme Court the next day, so that the apex court motivated to clarify that the observation of the High Court could not serve as an example in other similar cases.
In the current case, however, Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal appeared for the NIA, asked whether a decision would be done only after a detailed study of a decision to file an appeal.
