Malegaon Blast Case: NIA Court Acquits All Seven Accused, Cites Lack of Evidence and Flawed Investigation

Mumbai : In a landmark judgment, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, citing lack of evidence and serious lapses in the investigation. The benefit of the doubt was given to the accused after the court rejected key elements of the prosecution’s case, including the theory that Lt Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit planted the bomb and that the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur.

Special NIA Judge A.K. Lahoti pointedly criticized the prosecution for its inability to prove who manufactured or supplied the bomb and for failing to establish who planted the explosive device on the motorcycle. The court said that while the prosecution alleged Lt Col Purohit planted the bomb, there was no concrete evidence to back this claim. It also observed that the explosive could have been merely placed or hung on the motorcycle — a crucial distinction that undermined the prosecution’s case.

Importantly, the court noted that the motorcycle’s chassis number was never recovered, and the ownership of the vehicle could not be conclusively linked to Sadhvi Pragya. Thus, the prosecution’s narrative that she owned the vehicle used in the bombing failed to hold up under judicial scrutiny.

The judgment further stated that no evidence linked the alleged right-wing group Abhinav Bharat to the bombing. “The case appeared to be based more on allegations than on solid proof,” Judge Lahoti remarked.

One of the more disturbing observations made by the court was regarding the planting of explosives. It highlighted the serious charge that explosives may have been planted at the residence of one of the accused, Sudhakar Chaturvedi. Taking note of this, the court ordered the Additional Director General (ADG) of Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) to launch a probe into these allegations.

The court also found fault with the forensic handling of the case. It said that the panchnama (spot inspection report) was not prepared properly after the blast and that no fingerprints were collected from the scene. Additionally, critical evidence was contaminated due to improper collection methods by the experts.

The seven accused in the case were:

• Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, BJP MP from Bhopal
• Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit
• Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay
• Ajay Rahirkar
• Sudhakar Dwivedi
• Sudhakar Chaturvedi
• Sameer Kulkarni

The Malegaon blast occurred on the evening of September 29, 2008, near the Bhikku Chowk mosque in the communally sensitive town of Malegaon in Nashik district, Maharashtra. A bomb strapped to a motorcycle exploded during the month of Ramzan, killing six and injuring 101 people. The incident sparked violent riots and clashes between police and locals, which further complicated the investigation.

Following the verdict, emotional reactions poured in from the acquitted individuals. Major Upadhyay said, “I was physically tortured, mentally ruined, financially devastated, and socially boycotted. I spent nine years in jail, and my family suffered immeasurably.”

The trial lasted over a decade, and the verdict came after the court concluded hearings in April this year. A total of 323 witnesses were examined, 34 of whom turned hostile — a major blow to the prosecution’s case.

Initially investigated by the Maharashtra ATS, the case was handed over to the NIA in 2011. In 2016, the NIA filed a supplementary charge sheet, dropping stringent charges against some accused, including Sadhvi Pragya, citing insufficient evidence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

All seven accused were out on bail during the trial and were facing charges including conspiracy, murder, and use of explosives under provisions of the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Arms Act.

While acquitting the accused, the court directed the Maharashtra government to pay ₹2 lakh compensation to the families of the deceased and ₹50,000 to each injured victim.

Meanwhile, Advocate Shahid Nadeem, representing one of the victims, said, “This is not a clean acquittal. We will be appealing the verdict.”

This ruling has once again put a spotlight on the quality of investigations in terror-related cases and raises serious questions about prosecutorial accountability in high-profile trials.