Malegaon blasts case timeline: Here's how things unfolded from 2008 as ex-BJP MP Pragya Thakur and six others acquitted
'All bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties are discharged,' the court said in its order.
The court also directed the Maharashtra government to pay compensation of ₹ 2 lakh each to the families of those killed in the blast and ₹ 50,000 each to those who were injured.
The blast took place on September 29 2008, when an explosive device attached to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in Bhikku Chowk, Malegaon. Six people lost their lives, and 95 others were injured in the explosion. Initially, 11 people were named as accused in the case, but charges were ultimately framed against only seven of them.
September 29, 2008: A bomb planted on a motorcycle goes off at Malegaon in Maharashtra's Nashik district. Six persons killed and 101 injured.
September 30, 2008: An FIR is lodged at Azad Nagar Police station in Malegaon.
October 21, 2008: Maharashtra's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) takes over the probe into the case.
October 23, 2008: ATS makes first arrests in the case. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and three others arrested. ATS claims the blast was carried out by right wing extremists.
November 2008: Lt Col Prasad Purohit arrested by ATS for his alleged involvement in the conspiracy of the blast.
January 20, 2009: ATS files charge-sheet against 11 arrested accused, including Pragya Thakur and Purohit before special court. Accused are charged under the stringent provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Two persons - Ramji alias Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange are shown as wanted accused.
July 2009: Special court says provisions of MCOCA are not applicable in the case and the accused shall be tried by a court in Nashik.
August 2009: Maharashtra government moves Bombay High Court in appeal against special court order.
July 2010: Bombay High Court overturns special court order and upholds the charges under MCOCA.
August 2010: Purohit and Pragya Singh Thakur move Supreme Court against HC order.
February 1, 2011: ATS Mumbai arrests another person - Pravin Mutalik. A total of 12 persons arrested by then.
April 13, 2011: National Investigation Agency (NIA) takes over the case.
February and December 2012: NIA arrests two more persons - Lokesh Sharma and Dhan Singh Chaudhary. Total arrests 14 by then.
April 2015: Supreme Court sends back case to special court for reconsideration of applicability of MCOCA.
February 2016: NIA tells special court that it has taken the Attorney General's opinion on whether provisions of MCOCA can be applied in the case.
May 13, 2016: NIA files charge-sheet before special court. Drops MCOCA charges from the case. Gives clean chit to seven accused.
April 25, 2017: Bombay High court grants bail to Pragya Thakur. HC refuses bail to Purohit.
September 21, 2017: Purohit gets bail from the Supreme Court. By the end of the year, all arrested accused out on bail.
December 27, 2017: Special NIA court discharges accused Shivnarayan Kalsangra, Shyam Sahu and Praveen Mutalik Naik from the case.
Court also drops charges related to being members of a terrorist organisation and raising funds for terrorist acts under the UAPA.
October 30, 2018: Charges framed against seven accused - Thakur, Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi and Sudhakar Chaturvedi. They face trial under UAPA for committing a terrorist act, and under IPC for criminal conspiracy and murder.
December 3, 2018: Trial begins with the examination of first witness in the case.
September 14, 2023: After examining 323 prosecution witnesses (of which 37 turned hostile), prosecution decides to close its evidence.
July 23 ,2024: Examination of defence witnesses (eight) completed.
August 12, 2024: Special court records final statements of accused under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Matter posted for final arguments of prosecution and defence.
April 19, 2025: Special court closes trial for judgment.
July 31, 2025: Special NIA Judge A K Lahoti acquits all seven accused, including Thakur and Purohit, noting there was no "cogent and reliable" evidence to warrant conviction. Court says the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Online bullying can be as mentally traumatic as physical violence: Delhi HC
Cyberbullying can be as mentally traumatic and scarring as physical violence, the Delhi High Court has said, while upholding the conviction of a man who sent morphed nude images and threatening messages to a minor girl studying in Class 9. The judgment, delivered on July 28 by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stressed the devastating psychological impact of online harassment, particularly on children. (HT Archive) The court rejected his appeal against a five-year sentence, describing the case as a 'textbook example of cyberbullying.' The judgment, delivered on July 28 by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stressed the devastating psychological impact of online harassment, particularly on children. 'What is deeply concerning is the use of technology to commit cyberbullying – an act that, while faceless and silent, can be as mentally traumatic and scarring as physical violence, especially when directed towards children. Such conduct, in the virtual world, has very real and devastating consequences in the real world,' justice Sharma said. The conviction stems from a complaint filed in September 2016 by the victim's mother. The minor girl, then in Class 9, was using a tablet for studying when she received morphed obscene images of herself along with threatening messages on WhatsApp. The sender, a man known to the family, warned her that the photos would be circulated if she didn't comply with his demands. The trial court in March last year had convicted him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code including sexual harassment, stalking, criminial intimidation, sections 12 (sexual harassment) and 14 (using child for pornographic purposes) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, 2012 and section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) under the Information Technology Act. Challenging the verdict, the man claimed he was falsely implicated and that the case was full of contradictions. The Delhi Police, however, maintained that the evidence clearly showed he had transmitted obscene material and had criminally intimidated a minor. Justice Sharma, in her 35-page ruling, upheld the trial court's decision. She said that even the threat of circulating morphed images, without actually doing so, can cause irreparable long-term damage to a child's mental well-being and dignity. The act of morphing her face, the court added, sought to not only shame her but to coerce her by creating fear. 'A morphed image once created and circulated can have long-term consequences for a child's mental health, dignity, and reputation,' the judge observed. 'The fear of such circulation alone, even if the image is never actually published, is enough to terrorise a young mind.' The court also highlighted the urgent need to protect children in digital spaces. With growing reliance on gadgets for education, it said, the notion of child safety must extend beyond physical environments. 'This court is of the view that creating a safe environment for children cannot be restricted to physical spaces alone. The modern world demands that equal protection be extended to digital spaces, where children are now spending considerable time,' the court said.
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Ghaziabad: Man gets 10 years' jail for kidnapping, raping 16-year-old girl
A Ghaziabad court on Thursday sentenced a 26-year-old man to 10 years in prison for abducting and raping a 16-year-old girl in November 2019 after befriending her on social media. An FIR in this connection was registered on November 19, 2019. (Representational image) The incident took place on November 14, 2019, when the accused, Sahibabad resident Salman Khan, alias Sam, allegedly lured the girl into his Swift car and took her on a train to Rampur, where he forcibly made her stay at his aunt's house for three to four days before raping her several times, and then returning to Ghaziabad, according to police. An FIR in this connection was registered on November 19, 2019, under sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 366 (abducting or kidnapping a woman for compelling her to marry) of the Indian Penal Code, and also under sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The sections of Pocso Act deal with penetrative sexual assault. The police filed a charge sheet on January 18, 2020, and the complaint was filed by her father. In the court order, the girl in her statements before a magistrate (under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code), narrated the incident and said that she had befriended the man on a social media platform. 'The girl in her statements before a magistrate and also before the court during the trial stood by her testimony. Based on evidence and testimony, the court convicted the accused and pronounced 10 years of imprisonment. The suspect was her online friend for the 6-7 months before the incident and forcibly took her to Rampur, where he assaulted her,' said Utkarsh Vats, special public prosecutor (Pocso). The girl in her statements before the court saud, 'He was my friend on a social media platform for 6-7 months. I got angry with my mother over some issue on November 14, 2019. The accused took me to Rampur even though I refused to go. There, he made me stay at his aunt's house for a few days and forcibly assaulted me two to three times even though I resisted.' In her chief examination, she said that the accused had picked her up from near her house and, while on the way to Rampur, also took her phone and switched it off. In Rampur, she met his uncle and aunt, and the accused told her not to talk to anybody. The court in its judgment said, 'It appears that accused Salman lured and took the daughter of the complainant in order to have sex. He lured and kidnapped her from the custody of her legal guardian and assaulted her. So, the offences under sections 376, 363, and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and the section of Pocso are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.' The court said that the accused is on bail and 'should be taken in judicial custody, and his bail bonds stand cancelled.'
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Friend not hubby's relative under Sec 498A: Bombay HC
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court recently held that a friend of husband cannot be treated as his "relative" under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises cruelty to a wife by her husband or his relatives. The court quashed criminal proceedings against a Nagpur resident, who was accused of abetting dowry harassment against his friend's wife. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Mahendra Nerlikar said the definition of "relative" must be interpreted strictly. "A friend cannot be said to be a relative as he is neither a blood relative nor did he have any relation through marriage or adoption," the bench ruled in its July 29 order. The friend approached the court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered at Chimur police station in Chandrapur district and the pending criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chimur. The FIR, lodged on June 13, 2022, alleged that the petitioner would frequently visit the couple's home and instigate the husband to demand a plot of land and a car from his wife's family. If the demands were not fulfilled, he allegedly encouraged the husband to send his wife back to her parental home. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like TV providers are furious: this gadget gives you access to all channels Techno Mag Learn More Undo While the counsel for the friend, SA Mohta, argued that he was not related to the husband and hence Section 498A was not applicable to him, the prosecution contended that a broader interpretation of the term "relative" should be adopted to cover such abetment by outsiders. HC relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dechamma IM versus State of Karnataka (2024), where it was held that even a girlfriend or a woman in a romantic relationship with a man cannot be considered a "relative" for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A. "The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption," the SC had observed. The Nagpur bench then concluded that the same principle would apply to a friend of the husband. "Therefore, considering the above facts and upon plain reading of Section 498A of the IPC, we conclude that a friend of the husband will not fall under the definition of 'relative'," the bench held. The court clarified that the petitioner's application did not seek relief for the husband, his mother, and his father, and hence proceedings against them would continue.
