Last Updated:
On July 31, the special NIA court acquitted all accused, including Sadhvi Pragya Thakur and Col Shrikant Purohit
The scene of the Malegaon bomb blast. File pic/PTI
Almost a month after the Malegaon blast case judgment, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) is still undecided about filing a review in the high court. “It is a lengthy judgment, spanning over 1,000 pages. We are still examining the order and seeking legal opinions,” an NIA spokesperson stated during a media briefing when questioned about challenging the lower court’s decision.
Recommended Stories
On July 31, the special NIA court acquitted all accused, including Sadhvi Pragya Thakur and Col Shrikant Purohit, describing NIA’s evidence as “inconclusive”, “unreliable”, and “legally inadmissible”.
Courts typically disapprove of delays exceeding 30 days by agencies for filing an appeal. “Although the standard period is 30 days, courts have condoned delays if substantial legal questions are involved,” an NIA spokesperson noted.
In the 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case, the NIA had opted not to file an appeal in the high court.
The Malegaon blast occurred on September 29, 2008, resulting in six fatalities and over a hundred injuries. The trial extended over 17 years.
Several technical errors were identified during the investigation. The court said it could not be conclusively proven that the motorcycle alone was used in the blast, nor was there evidence that Purohit stored RDX at his residence. The spot panchnama was improperly conducted, and although the motorcycle chassis number resembled that of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur’s bike, this alone was not sufficient as conclusive evidence. The prosecution failed to establish that secret meetings occurred, and the voice test was not performed according to the prescribed guidelines.
The other accused in the case included Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni. Initially investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), the case was transferred to the NIA in 2011. The NIA pursued “commensurate punishment” for all accused, based on what they claimed to be “relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proven evidence”.
The NIA asserted that the Malegaon blast, in a town with a significant Muslim population, was part of a broader conspiracy aimed at terrorising the Muslim community, disrupting essential services, inciting communal tension, and threatening internal security. It argued that the accused were directly involved in orchestrating the attack and actively participated in the conspiracy leading to the explosion.
The prosecution further contended that the timing of the blast, during the holy month of Ramzan and just before the Navratri festival, was intentional, designed to instil fear among Muslims. The trial commenced in 2018 after charges were framed and concluded on April 19, 2025, with the matter reserved for judgment.
Charges included Sections 16 (committing a terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy to commit a terrorist act) of the UAPA, alongside IPC Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 153-A (promoting enmity between religious groups). Throughout the trial, the prosecution presented 323 witnesses, of whom 37 turned hostile, reflecting the complexities and challenges of the high-profile case.
About the Author
Arunima is Editor (Home Affairs) and covers strategic, security and political affairs. From the Ukraine-Russia War to the India-China stand-off in Ladakh to India-Pak clashes, she has reported from ground zero …Read More
Arunima is Editor (Home Affairs) and covers strategic, security and political affairs. From the Ukraine-Russia War to the India-China stand-off in Ladakh to India-Pak clashes, she has reported from ground zero … Read More
Loading comments…
Read More
