Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused, including BJP leader Pragya Thakur, acquitted
Malegaon blast verdict: Almost 17 years after a blast killed six persons and left more than 100 injured in Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon town, a special NIA court on Thursday acquitted a
By Nivedita Dash Edited by Nivedita Dash
Advertisement
Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused including BJP leader Pragya Thakur acquitted
Malegaon blast verdict: Almost 17 years after a blast killed six persons and left more than 100 injured in Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon town, a special NIA court on Thursday acquitted all the accused including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit.
Seven accused, including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, were facing trial in the case for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code.
Advertisement ===
Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni were the other accused in the case.
What the court said?
Advertisement ===
The court instructed that the families of all six victims of the blast will be given Rs 2 lakh each, and all injured victims will be given Rs 50,000 as compensation.
The court said:
UAPA will not be invoked in this case as sanction was not taken as per rules. Both the sanction orders of the UAPA in the case are defective.
Abhinav Bharat organisation was used as a common reference by the prosecution. There is no evidence that the money of the Abhinav Bharat was used for terror activities.
Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon, but failed to prove that a bomb was placed in that motorcycle. The court has come to the conclusion that the injured people were not 101 but 95 only, and there was manipulation in some medical certificates.
What was the case?
Six persons were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008.
In its final argument, the NIA submitted that the blast in Malegaon – a town with a sizable Muslim population – was orchestrated by the conspirators to terrorise a section of Muslim community, disrupt essential services, create communal tensions, and threaten the state's internal security.
The NIA has said that based on 'relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proved evidence' it 'conclusively and cogently' established the crucial circumstances to form a complete chain of events.
The charges comprised UAPA sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) and various IPC sections, including 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153 (a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
NDA MLAs on edge, Yogi Adityanath takes steps to remove friction with officials
WITH several ministers in his government as well as ruling BJP MPs and MLAs going vocal about lack of cooperation from officials in their regions, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has taken matters in his own hands. On Friday, The Indian Express reported Energy Minister A K Sharma's outbursts against his department's employees, who have been holding protests over plans to privatise power distribution in the state and seeking his removal. On Sunday July 27, Adityanath held a development review of Kanpur, Chitrakoot and Jhansi divisions at his official residence, where MPs and MLAs of the area as well as officials were present. The message was that the officials should keep public representatives in the loop on development projects and schemes in their regions. A similar meeting was held for the Lucknow division on July 30, with such 'Mandalwar Samwad' planned for regions across the state in the coming days. Sources say that while friction between legislators and officials in the state has been building for about two years – since the BJP returned to power, and Adityanath became CM again – voices are growing now because of the forthcoming panchayat elections, followed by the Assembly polls in 2027. Pointing to 'all-powerful' officials under the Adityanath government, a BJP MLA said: 'They act on whim, without regard to public representatives or protocol. We are answerable to the public, but we often find ourselves helpless when we take up their issues, such as road repairs, electricity connection restoration, or land records correction. When we approach senior leaders or ministers, they also throw up their hands.' The MLA added that they were waiting to see the results of the exercise started by the CM to get public representatives and officials together. Ministers have complained about being equally helpless before officials of their department. In a post on his office's X account, Energy Minister A K Sharma recently wrote: 'Officers have completely stopped answering phones. The situation was already bad, and now it has worsened.' He uploaded an audio clip of a conversation between a power consumer and an official of his department to make his point. Last week, Minister of State for Women and Child Welfare Pratibha Shukla staged a sit-in against Kanpur Police, alleging that her supporters were being 'targeted' unfairly. Shukla is an MLA from Akbarpur-Rania in Kanpur Dehat. Before that, the contents of a letter by Minister for Infrastructure and Industries Nand Gopal Gupta 'Nandi' to the CM had gone viral, where he accused officials in his department of not following directives 'for over two years', as well as acting arbitrarily and showing preferential treatment to some. Sources told The Indian Express that Nandi wrote the letter after failing to get a response on several complaints made by him against officials, or seeing any action against them. Before Nandi, Technical Education Minister Ashish Patel, who belongs to NDA ally Apna Dal (S), alleged at a party meeting that officials in his department were using government funds to defame the Apna Dal (S). Officials, for their part, talk of undue pressure from public representatives. A member of the Secretariat employees' union told The Indian Express: 'Soon after he took charge, the CM publicly told officials to not be afraid of anything and to work without pressure… Over time, it has become a problem for public representatives who have been used to getting their work done… At the same time, officials too need to be respected… There has to be a balance from both sides, and the CM is trying to ensure this now.' At the meetings held recently by Adityanath, the CM urged the NDA MPs and MLAs to share their concerns and suggest projects that they felt were significant for their constituencies, and told the officers to prepare a report on the suggestions made. One point stressed by Adityanath was that the names of local representatives be prominently displayed on foundation or inauguration plaques set up for projects. The CM said that the MPs and MLAs should then act as watchdogs of these government schemes and monitor them. A senior official present at one of these meetings said: 'The CM took feedback from MLAs and MPs on the situation in their constituencies, as well as the administrative coordination and public expectations.' Among the projects proposed by MLAs were those dealing with road connectivity, logistics hubs, approach roads to religious places, and irrigation. An MLA who attended the July 27 meeting said: 'Instructions were given by the CM on the spot depending on issues raised by the public representatives. It is a healthy exercise… We hope things will change on the ground as well.' At the end of Sunday's meeting, Rs 4,901 crore worth of projects were finalised for the Jhansi division, Rs 3,875 crore worth of projects for Chitrakoot division, and about Rs 10,914 crore worth of projects for Kanpur. MoS Pratibha Shukla, who protested against police in her area recently, said things were taking a turn. 'Yogi ji has sorted things,' she told The Indian Express. 'He listened to us and also instructed officials to listen to our grievances. Both the DM and SDM of our district have been changed… We are hopeful things will change on the ground too.'
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
‘Strong suspicion, no legal proof': Why all 7 accused in the 2008 Malegoan bomb blast case walked free
A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court on Thursday (July 31, 2025) acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit. In a detailed 1,036-page judgment that was delivered on July 31 and made available on August 1 evening, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed that although the occurrence of the bomb blast was indisputable, the prosecution had failed to produce credible and admissible evidence establishing the accused's involvement in the crime. 'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the Judge underscored. However, he directed the State Government to pay compensation of ₹2 lakh to the families of the deceased and ₹50,000 to those injured in the blast. Editorial | By evidence alone: on the 2008 Malegaon blast trial What was the Malegaon blast case? On September 29, 2008, during the holy month of Ramzan, a powerful bomb blast ripped through Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. Around 9:35 p.m., an explosive device concealed in an LML Freedom motorcycle with a fake number plate (MH-15-P-4572) detonated near Shakeel Goods Transport Company, between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk. The explosion killed six people, injured 95 others, and caused significant damage to surrounding property. An FIR was promptly registered, and the investigation was initially undertaken by the Nashik Rural Police and Mumbai's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), then headed by Hemant Karkare, who was later killed in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. In 2011, the case was transferred to the NIA as part of a wider probe into alleged Hindutva-linked terror cases. Of the 14 individuals arrested in connection with the blast, charges against seven were eventually dropped. The remaining seven, Pragya Singh Thakur, Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, and Sudhakar Chaturvedi, were put on trial. They were prosecuted for murder and criminal conspiracy under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. According to the ATS, conspiracy meetings had taken place across various locations allegedly under Ms. Thakur's leadership. The agency also claimed that the two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, had assembled the explosive device and placed it in the boot of a motorcycle registered to Ms. Thakur. However, several witnesses, including serving Army officers, later retracted their statements in court, alleging that their earlier testimonies had been coerced. Many of the accused also claimed that their confessions were extracted under torture. The NIA appeared to accept parts of these allegations in its final chargesheet, which the defence used to bolster its case. The case also attracted widespread attention following the resignation of NIA special public prosecutor Rohini Salian, who alleged that she had been instructed to 'go soft' on the accused and that the agency was deliberately weakening the case against the so-called 'Hindu terror' network. After her departure, special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over and conducted the trial to its conclusion. Why were the accused acquitted by the court? Here are some of the key findings: Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of motorcycle The court held that Ms. Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of the LML Freedom motorcycle in which the explosive device was allegedly planted. Citing her renunciation of the material world at least two years before the blast, Judge Lahoti observed, 'Prosecution had not led any evidence on record to show that she was in conscious possession of the said motorcycle even after renouncement of the material world. Nobody has seen her with the said motorcycle, or it was with her at Jabalpur Aashram even after taking the Sanyas.' The Judge further observed that there was neither eyewitness testimony nor circumstantial evidence to suggest that Ms. Thakur had handed over the motorcycle to the co-accused or was involved in assembling the explosive device. Instead, he noted that the explosive could have been hung, placed, or kept near the motorcycle, rather than fitted inside it. 'Mere, blast on the site and damaged condition of the motorcycle are not conclusive proof of fitting explosives inside the dikki, i.e., beneath the seat of said motorcycle,' the Judge observed, adding that expert testimony did not rule out the possibility of the device being attached externally or placed nearby. As for allegations of torture by the ATS, the court noted that Ms. Thakur had not raised any such complaint when she was produced before a magistrate on October 24, 2008, following her arrest. Citing an earlier Supreme Court order, the Judge pointed out that she neither made any allegations of ill-treatment at the time nor challenged the magistrate's remand order. No official sanction for Purohit's association with Abhinav Bharat The ATS alleged that the explosive used in the blast was RDX, claiming it had been procured by Colonel Purohit during his posting in Jammu & Kashmir. However, the court found no evidence establishing the source of the explosive or how it was procured or transported. It also noted the absence of any proof regarding who had parked the motorcycle at the blast site or when, particularly since the area had been cordoned off for Ramzan. However, Judge Lahoti rejected Mr. Purohit's claim that his association with fringe organisations like Abhinav Bharat was part of his official duties as an intelligence officer. He noted that documentary evidence clearly established Mr. Purohit's role as a trustee of the Abhinav Bharat Trust. However, there was no material on record to suggest that his superiors had authorised him to join the trust or to collect and utilise its funds. 'As per the ethos of the Military Intelligence, the commanding officer or the Discipline & Vigilance Branch 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 the duty under the colour of his office, there would have been protection for him,' the Judge reasoned. Absence of forensic evidence Judge Lahoti observed that the forensic expert who examined the motorcycle, on which the explosive device was allegedly planted, had admitted that it was merely his 'guesswork' that led him to conclude the bomb was placed in the vehicle's boot. No scientific test had been conducted to verify the placement of the explosive. Accordingly, the Judge held that in the absence of any primary forensic analysis, the expert's testimony failed to inspire confidence. 'The present matter is [a] serious case of bomb-blast. In such a case, mere guess work is not enough. Neither it is expected from expert when he is specifically called on the spot to collect the articles, to assist and to guide the Investigating Agency by carrying out some scientific tests. In such situation, there must be some scientific test to be carried out by an expert on the spot to arrive at certain conclusion,' the Judge emphasised. Procedural lapses in the invocation of MCOCA and UAPA The ATS, which initially investigated the blast, based its case primarily on the accused having participated in conspiracy meetings related to the planning and execution of the attack. Its key evidence comprised confessional statements recorded under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. However, these confessions were rendered inadmissible after MCOCA was dropped from the case in 2016, when the NIA took over the investigation and flagged procedural lapses in the Act's invocation. The court concurred, noting that the sanction to invoke MCOCA had been granted without 'application of judicial mind.' A similar procedural lapse was found in the invocation of the UAPA. Judge Lahoti noted that the then Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, Mumbai, Chitkala Zutshi, had failed to consult the investigating officer before granting sanction under the UAPA. As a result, the statutory presumptions under the Act, such as the reverse burden of proof, could not be invoked against the accused, the court held. No merit in claim that ATS directed arrest of RSS chief The court rejected the claim made by former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar that he had been instructed to arrest RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat in connection with the case. Judge Lahoti found no merit in the argument advanced by the lawyer for the accused, Mr. Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, who had relied on Mr. Mujawar's statements before a Solapur court. Mr. Mujawar had alleged that senior ATS officers directed him to arrest Mr. Bhagwat to frame the case as one of 'saffron terror,' but said he refused, having found no evidence linking Mr. Bhagwat to the alleged crime. However, the Judge relied on the testimony of Mr. Mohan Kulkarni, the then chief investigating officer, who stated that Mr. Mujawar was only tasked with tracing the absconding accused, Mr. Ramji Kalsangra and Mr. Sandeep Dange, and was never instructed to arrest any RSS leader. The court also noted that Mr. Mujawar was neither listed nor examined as a witness by either side. Accordingly, it concluded that the statements submitted were part of Mr. Mujawar's defence in another case and held no evidentiary value in the present trial. What happens next? Advocate Shahid Nadeem, representing Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayyed Bilal, who lost his son in the blast, told the media that the case reflected 'significant failures' on the part of the NIA. He added that the victims' families intend to explore legal remedies by filing an independent appeal in the Bombay High Court after reviewing the full judgment. Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting on the Maharashtra Government to file its own appeal, as it did following the acquittals in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Twelve Muslim men were acquitted after spending 19 years in prison, with the High Court issuing scathing observations on the use of torture during the investigation. The State had moved the Supreme Court the very next day, prompting the apex court to clarify that the High Court's observations could not serve as precedent in other similar cases. In the present case, however, Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal, appearing for the NIA, said a decision on whether to file an appeal would be made only after a detailed study of the judgment.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 minutes ago
- Business Standard
PM to inaugurate Bengaluru's Yellow Line Metro on Aug 10: Tejasvi Surya
BJP leader Tejasvi Surya on Sunday announced that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will inaugurate the Yellow Line Metro Rail on August 10. In a post on X', the Bengaluru South MP said, PM Sri @narendramodi Ji will inaugurate the all important Yellow Line metro on August 10. On behalf of all people of Bengaluru, I thank PM for always prioritising infrastructure development of our city." The Yellow Line is expected to benefit nearly eight lakh commuters and ease traffic congestion in key areas, including the notorious Silk Board junction. According to Surya, pubic transport is the only long-term solution to Bengaluru's traffic woes. With the August 10 inauguration, the Metro project would meet the August 15 deadline. He credited the timely launch to Modi's personal push to ensure that the line is open to public without any further delay. Surya, who is also the BJYM national president, quoted Union Urban Affairs Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, who said on X', I am pleased to announce that the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India has kindly agreed to inaugurate 19.15 km Yellow Line from RV Road to Bommasandra of Bangaluru metro with 16 stations at the cost of Rs 5,056.99 crore and lay the foundation stone of 44.65 km of Bangalore phase-3 at the cost of Rs 15,611 Crore on 10th August 2025. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
