Maharashtra ATS Challenges Mumbai Train Blasts Acquittals In Top Court
Chief Justice BR Gavai will lead a three-judge bench alongside Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria to examine the appeal. The urgent listing came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Maharashtra ATS, emphasized the matter's gravity and requested expedited proceedings.
The Bombay High Court's recent verdict completely overturned the trial court's 2009 judgment that had imposed death sentences on five accused individuals and life imprisonment on seven others. The original convictions stemmed from their alleged involvement in orchestrating and executing the coordinated bomb attacks that targeted Mumbai's Western Railway network on July 11, 2006.
Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak, forming the division bench, delivered a scathing assessment of the prosecution's case, declaring that investigators had "utterly failed" to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court expressed difficulty in believing that the accused had actually committed the crimes they were charged with.
The High Court raised serious concerns about the investigation methods employed, specifically highlighting allegations of torture against ATS officials. The judges observed that investigators appeared to be operating under intense pressure to produce quick results following the attacks, potentially compromising the integrity of the evidence-gathering process.
This judicial criticism deals a devastating blow to the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad's investigation, which had maintained strong connections between the accused and the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India. The ATS had built its case around claims that the suspects had collaborated with Pakistani operatives from Lashkar-e-Taiba to orchestrate the deadly attack.
The tragic incident remains etched in Mumbai's collective memory as one of the most horrific terrorist strikes in Indian history. Within a terrifying eleven-minute span, seven explosive devices detonated across the Western Railway's suburban train network, claiming 189 innocent lives and leaving more than 800 people injured. The coordinated nature of the attacks and their impact on ordinary commuters made this one of the deadliest terror incidents the country has witnessed.
The acquittal verdict has sparked significant debate about the quality of terrorism investigations and the pressure law enforcement agencies face to deliver swift justice in high-profile cases. Legal experts have noted that the High Court's observations about torture allegations and investigative shortcomings raise broader questions about procedural safeguards in terrorism prosecutions.
As the Supreme Court prepares to examine this contentious appeal, the outcome will likely have far-reaching implications for how terrorism cases are investigated and prosecuted in India. The hearing represents a crucial moment for both the victims' families, who have waited nearly two decades for justice, and the legal system's credibility in handling complex terrorism cases.
The case's journey through various judicial levels reflects the challenges inherent in prosecuting terrorism-related offenses while maintaining due process standards and ensuring that convictions are based on solid, untainted evidence rather than investigative pressure or public sentiment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Malegaon verdict on July 31: Recalling the 2008 bombing and the case against the accused
On Thursday (July 31), a special court in Mumbai will pronounce its verdict on the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in which former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit are among the accused. In one of the country's longest-running terror cases, seven accused have been on trial on charges including murder and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the anti-terrorism law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Ahead of the judgment, this is a recall of what happened in Malegaon, and the major milestones in the 17-year journey of the case. The blast on September 29, 2008 A bomb went off at a chowk in Malegaon, a town known for its powerloom industry, about 100 km northeast of Nashik in Maharashtra. It was Ramzan, the holy month of fasting in Islam, and the blast, which took place in an area with a large Muslim population, killed six people and injured 100. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which took over the investigation from the local police, suspected that the improvised explosive device (IED) had been planted on an LML Freedom motorcycle. It was suspected that the conspirators had consciously chosen the month of Ramzan and the eve of Navaratri to carry out the bombing, intending to cause communal rifts and endanger the internal security of the state. The ATS claimed that the registration number of the motorcycle that was found at the site of the explosion – MH-15-P-4572 – was fake, and that its engine number and chassis number had been erased. The motorcycle was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Nashik for restoration of the erased numbers. The ATS alleged that the owner of the bike was Pragya Singh Thakur alias Sadhwi Poornachetanand Giri, and arrested her on October 23, 2008. Thakur's arrest and interrogation, the ATS claimed, led it to the other accused. The agency said that it had intercepted phone calls of suspected persons. Calls between Lt Col Purohit and retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay were under scrutiny. Upadhyay and Sameer Kulkarni were arrested on October 28. By November 14, 2008, a total of 11 persons had been arrested. Among them was Purohit, who was arrested from the premises of the Army in Colaba in South Mumbai. The accused claimed that they were illegally detained by the ATS before being produced in court, and that they had been tortured in custody. In November 2008, the ATS invoked stringent sections of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) against them. They were accused of having formed an organisation named Abhinav Bharat, which was an organised crime syndicate. In its chargesheet filed on January 20, 2009, the ATS named the 11 arrested persons as accused, and another three as wanted accused. The accused were charged under the IPC and UAPA. The ATS claimed that the accused had discussed targeting Muslims as revenge against terrorist acts by Muslim men. It was also alleged that the accused had discussed working towards 'Aryawart' or a Hindu rashtra with its own Constitution and flag, and a 'government in exile'. According to the ATS, the conspiracy had begun from January 2008, and meetings were held at a number of places including Faridabad, Bhopal, and Nashik. The ATS claimed that Thakur had promised to provide people to carry out the bombing, and funds were raised through Abhinav Bharat. RDX, the plastic explosive used in the IED, was procured by Purohit from his posting in Jammu and Kashmir, and the bomb was assembled at the house of the arrested accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi, the ATS claimed. It was alleged that the explosive device was fitted on the motorcycle by Chaturvedi and another accused, Ramchandra Kalsangra, after which the vehicle was parked at the spot. NIA finds gaps in ATS investigation In 2011, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the federal investigation agency that was set up after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Even as the NIA continued with its investigation, the accused approached courts challenging the invocation of MCOCA against them, under which their confessions were recorded. In its chargesheet filed on May 13, 2016, the NIA dropped the charges under MCOCA, saying that the manner in which the organised crime law was invoked by the ATS was 'questionable'. The ATS probe, it said, was filled with 'lacunae', and of the 11 individuals arrested by the agency, evidence existed against only seven, and against the two wanted accused, Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. The NIA said that the motorcycle registered in Thakur's name had been in the possession of Kalsangra, who was using it well before the blast. It also said that since MCOCA was not applied, confessions made under the Act, including a statement where it was claimed that Thakur had asked a co-accused to call Purohit to arrange for explosives, were inadmissible as evidence. Most of the ATS's case against the accused relied on confessions, and the NIA said that the confession of Chaturvedi was an 'outcome of torture'. It also said that due to the passage of time, no additional evidence could be recovered from the spot. The NIA re-recorded the statements of some witnesses before magistrates, citing inconsistencies in the ATS probe. Witnesses who the ATS had claimed were present in meetings in Bhopal and Faridabad where discussions on revenge and the blast were allegedly held, told the NIA that they were not present at these purported meetings, and did not hear any such talk. One of the main allegations in the NIA chargesheet was that the ATS had created false evidence to implicate the accused, and had illegally entered the house of Chatuvedi in Deolali, as was noticed by two Army officers. What court said on Thakur, Purohit, others Despite the NIA's pitch to drop Thakur as an accused, the special court hearing the case said there was prima facie evidence to put her on trial. Even though the NIA chargesheet claimed there was no witness or other proof to show her involvement in the conspiracy, the court said that it was difficult to accept Thakur's claim that she had no connection with the blast. On Purohit, a military intelligence officer, the court said that a conclusion could not be drawn that he had participated in the alleged conspiracy meetings ahead of the blast in the discharge of his duty and with the permission of his superiors, as he had claimed. On December 27, 2017, the court accepted the NIA's contention that MCOCA cannot be invoked in the case. It said that the seven accused – Thakur, Purohit, retired Major Upadhyay, Kulkarni, Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, and Sudhakar Dwivedi – would face trial under UAPA, IPC, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The court also said that two other accused, Rakesh Dhawde and Jagdish Mhatre, would face trial only under the Arms Act, 1959, in Pune, and three others would be discharged for lack of evidence, as proposed by the NIA. How the trial of the accused progressed The trial began in December 2018. The ATS, the previous probe agency, did not have a say in the proceedings, but the prosecution relied on documents and evidence collected by both the ATS and the NIA during the trial. More than 30 witnesses who were cited in the chargesheet passed away before they could depose before the court. The prosecution examined 323 witnesses and cited technical evidence including Call Data Records and voice samples. Thirty-four of the witnesses turned hostile. The testimonies of these witnesses mainly related to Purohit and the alleged conspiracy meetings. These witnesses denied having participated in or heard any discussions by the accused about the conspiracy to carry out a bomb blast. Some of the accused also alleged that they had been coerced, illegally detained, and threatened by the ATS into giving false statements naming certain persons. In its final arguments, the prosecution submitted that there was evidence in respect of Call Data Records, and forensic evidence to show that the explosive device had been planted in the LML motorcycle. There was also evidence to show the presence of the accused at the places where the conspiracy meetings had taken place, and other documentary proof. The accused claimed that with witnesses turning hostile, the conspiracy was not proven at all. The accused also claimed that a mob of 15,000 had 'manipulated' the crime scene. Police officials deposed that a mob, angry about the attack, had gathered and stones were thrown at the police. Lawyers for the accused claimed that the mob was 'motivated', and had 'attempted to screen the real culprit'.
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Nitish Kumar has a succession problem. Is his son the answer?
Written by Mrityunjay Sharma A puzzle has engaged everyone in Bihar over the last few months: Whether Nishant, Nitish Kumar's son, will join politics. Ever since his first public appearance in January, appealing to the people to vote for his father, political circles have been abuzz. Media speculation has only intensified, with significant political figures from both within and outside the JD(U) pitching for Nishant to take up the reins of the party. The latest to join this chorus is Upendra Kushwaha, Nitish's old ally and currently the leader of an NDA constituent, Rashtriya Lok Samta Party. In a recent comment, Kushwaha urged Nitish to hand over the party's leadership to Nishant, warning that any delay may cause irreparable damage. While Kushwaha's statement may carry political undertones, what he said appears to reflect the JD(U)'s only viable option. In the ever-evolving landscape of Indian politics, dynastic succession is no longer a surprise; it is a pattern. Nishant, an engineering graduate from BIT Mesra, has consistently maintained his disinterest in politics and expressed a personal inclination toward spirituality. What also makes Nishant's case particularly intriguing is that for years, Nitish has positioned himself as a leader different from Bihar's family-driven political model. Unlike his contemporaries — Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav — who openly groomed their sons as successors, Nitish Kumar never gave any such indication. Yet, as age catches up, the absence of a clear successor has begun to haunt the JD (U), making a once-unthinkable family transition appear increasingly inevitable. In Indian politics, where legacy often triumphs over merit, dynastic succession is more of a norm than an anomaly. From the Nehru-Gandhi family in the Congress to the Yadavs of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Thackerays of Maharashtra, the Badals of Punjab, and the DMK's dominance in Tamil Nadu, leadership succession through family ties is more of a survival strategy than a coincidence. The case of Nishant Kumar is merely another instance of this larger trend where smaller political parties, rather than fostering new leadership, pass on the reins within the family to ensure continuity. While some may argue that dynastic politics is more common in larger parties like the Congress, it is far more pronounced — and often necessary —for regional and smaller parties. Unlike national parties, which have the backing of a larger ideological structure and grassroots cadre, regional parties are often built around one strong leader. When such a leader ages or retires, the most obvious successor is someone from the family, seen as a natural inheritor of the party's legacy and vote base. While Nitish Kumar tried to groom several potential successors, all eventually fell out of favour. R C P Singh, once his closest aide, was sidelined due to his proximity to the BJP. Upendra Kushwaha, seen as an OBC leader from his kindred Koeri caste, clashed with Nitish and was ousted. Prashant Kishor, despite Nitish's fondness, was never fully embraced due to his independent streak. Some speculate Manish Verma, a new entrant from the bureaucracy, as a future leader, but the JD(U)'s history suggests that no one outside the Kumar surname will be able to match themselves up to Nitish. What the JD(U) is moving towards is a lesson learned from Indian politics: Parties without a clear family succession have struggled to survive. While Mulayam Singh Yadav's SP and Lalu Prasad's RJD continue to thrive after handing over power to their sons, Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has struggled to pass on the baton to her nephew, Akash Anand in a bid to salvage her legacy. The late Ram Vilas Paswan's LJP offers another example. The original party split, and most of the party leaders went with Late Ram Vilas's brother, Pashupati Nath Paras, following a feud. However, the electorate still associates the LJP with Chirag Paswan, who has now reclaimed the party's legacy under a new political entity. Similarly, the BJD in Odisha faces uncertainty post-Naveen Patnaik era, with no clear family succession line. The trend is visible beyond the Hindi heartland as well. While DMK has been holding power in Tamil Nadu following a clear dynastic succession, the AIADMK has suffered in the absence of clear leadership post-Jayalalithaa. Unlike the BJP and Left parties, which have largely distanced themselves from dynastic politics and promoted second-rung leadership, regional and smaller parties often do not have the luxury of a strong ideological foundation. Their entire political existence is tied to the charisma of one leader. When that leader fades, keeping power within the family is often seen as the easiest way to ensure continuity. But this also raises critical concerns. Does dynastic succession hinder democratic party structures? Does it prevent the rise of talented grassroots leaders who are not part of the family? In many cases, the answer is yes. Regional parties rarely develop a robust second line of leadership, making it almost inevitable that leadership is passed within the family. Unlike the RJD or the SP, which have strong caste-based vote banks, the JD(U)'s voter base is fragmented, spread across voting blocs such as those of the EBCs and women voters. Nitish Kumar himself has relied on his good governance image and coalition politics rather than caste-based mobilisation. If Nishant Kumar does step into politics, he will have his task cut out. His success will hinge on whether he can craft an independent political identity or merely serve as a symbolic extension of his father's legacy. Complicating matters further, Nishant will face stiff competition from other political scions like Tejashwi Yadav and Chirag Paswan — both of whom have not only inherited political capital but also years of head-start in navigating Bihar's complex political terrain. While no confirmation has come yet, the speculation around Nishant Kumar suggests that even a party like the JD(U), which prided itself on governance and ideology, is finding it difficult to break free from dynastic patterns. This reflects a broader crisis in Indian politics, where family remains the strongest political capital, and where survival, more than ideology or governance, dictates leadership transitions. As long as political parties continue to be personal enterprises rather than institutional entities, the cycle of family-driven leadership will continue, no matter how much the electorate criticises it. The writer is a BJP Leader and author of Broken Promises: Caste, Crime and Politics in Bihar
Hans India
14 minutes ago
- Hans India
Feel proud to be an Indian: Daughter of man gunned down by Pahalgam terrorists
Kochi: Paying thanks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, Aarti, who saw her 68-year-old father Ramachandran being gunned down by a terrorist in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on April 22, said she was very proud to hear that the three terrorists who took part in the massacre of 26 people, have been killed by the Indian security forces. 'I heard the news that the three terrorists who took part in the Pahalgam massacre have been eliminated and I feel proud to be an Indian,' said Aarti. 'Even though this is not going to bring back my father, I feel this shows the real commitment of our leaders and the security forces. And I feel really proud of being an Indian,' added Aarti. In reply to a question Aarti said if she is called by the authorities, since she is a witness to the episode, 'I will go and tell them everything.' A former Non-Resident Indian who returned from the Middle East five years ago, Aarti's father Ramachandran was a staunch BJP supporter. He had unsuccessfully contested local body polls and was among those shortlisted as a potential BJP candidate for civic elections to be held later this year. Aarti, a mother of twin boys, was often seen breaking down on TV while recounting the horrifying moments when her father was shot dead by a terrorist, in full view of her two children. She, along with her parents, was holidaying in Pahalgam, Kashmir, when Ramachandran was gunned down by the terrorists. It must be recalled that Aarti had said then that the terrorist had put something on her head, following which her sons had cried out aloud. According to her, maybe hearing the cries of the small boys, the terrorist walked away without harming them. The Pahalgam terror attack saw 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen being shot dead by the terrorists.
