The blast killed six, injured over 90. The bomb was real, the pain remains, but the evidence, the court says, was never enough.
Sumit Singh, TwoCircles.net
Mumbai/New Delhi: Seventy-five-year-old Nisar Bilal was in the courtroom on July 31, when a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai announced its verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. His son Azhar had died when two bombs attached to a motorcycle exploded, resulting in at least six fatalities and 95 injuries.
On the evening of September 29 that year, a powerful explosion shook Malegaon, a town in Maharashtra known for its communal sensitivity, at around 9:30 p.m. It was fasting month of Ramzan. The blast came from a device placed in an LML Freedom bike parked near Shakeel Goods Transport Company. The motorcycle had a fake number plate. The explosion claimed six lives and left 95 others injured. Nearby buildings and shops were damaged.
The Nashik Rural Police and the Mumbai Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS), then led by Hemant Karkare, began the investigation. Karkare was later killed in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. In 2011, the case was handed over to the NIA, along with several other probes involving alleged Hindutva-linked terror incidents.
Fourteen people had been arrested during the early part of the case. Charges against seven of them were dropped. The other seven went to trial. They included Pragya Thakur, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi and Sudhakar Chaturvedi.
The ATS filed serious charges against them under the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Explosive Substances Act.
After 17 years of attending court hearings, Bilal heard that the seven accused had been acquitted. “The court’s verdict in this case today is not justice. We want justice, and we will knock on the doors of the Supreme Court,” he told TwoCircles.net.
The court acquitted the seven accused, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. The decision has prompted responses from victims’ families, lawyers, political leaders and retired officers.
Advocate Shahid Nadeem, who represented the families of the victims, said he plans to challenge the verdict in the Bombay High Court.
“We received absolutely no support from the NIA or the prosecution lawyers. They used to oppose us. Hume bolne ka mauka nahi dete the (They did not let us speak). It is a failure on the part of the NIA. Witnesses turned hostile during the trial, still the NIA did not pursue perjury charges against any of them, despite requests from the victims,” he said.
He alleged the agency did not adequately address the concerns raised by families during the proceedings. “The NIA could have performed better had it prioritised the concerns of the victims. Hum chahte the agencies apna kaam kare aur hume insaaf mile. Hamare log mare the (We wanted the agencies to do a fair investigation as we were expecting justice. We lost our people),” he said.
Nadeem further added that he had attended hearings regularly since 2016. “It was a tough time. We have faced so much over the years. The accused were high-profile people who exercised influence and had substantial resources, unlike us. We had to chase every hearing to ensure witnesses did not turn away. We got charges framed against them. They faced trial, but now all in vain. When Pragya Thakur was granted bail by the Bombay High Court in 2016, we opposed it but the NIA did not,” he said.
In 2015, former Special Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian alleged that she had been instructed by NIA officials to “go soft” on the accused after the change in central government.
“It was known that this would happen. What else is expected if you don’t lay out the true evidence? I had presented plenty of evidence, and the Supreme Court had upheld it all. Where did it all vanish?” she told The Indian Express.
She stated that the agency re-recorded witness statements and presented new evidence that contradicted earlier findings during its reinvestigation.
Responding to the court’s decision, Liyaqat Shaikh, 67, who lost his daughter Farheen, said, “This is an injustice to us. They should have been punished. They were caught with evidence.”
Farheen, who was 10 years old, had gone out to buy snacks when the bomb detonated.
The blast had taken place in a graveyard adjacent to a mosque. Maulana Qayyum Qasmi, a local religious leader who is associated with the managing committee of the mosque, said, “There have been many cases where the accused in blast cases were caught but were released due to a lack of proper evidence. After this verdict, it feels like there was pressure from the government on the judiciary, and that is why the decision was altered. We do not see justice in this.”
Masjid, killing six and injuring over 100 (Courtesy: X)
A member of the legal cell of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, which provided legal aid to victims’ families, said, wishing to remain anonymous, “We fought for justice, not just for the accused to be punished, but for the truth to come out. This verdict feels like a betrayal of that fight. We will carry forward the legal fight to higher courts.”
Retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Meeran Chadha Borwankar described the result as a “lapse” in the larger criminal justice process.
“If we say that ‘we have a history of failure in probes in terror cases’, who is to be blamed? The police alone? Let us admit that it is a collective failure, and we need to work together to streamline the criminal justice system,” she told TwoCircles.net.
Chargesheets filed in the case in 2010 included allegations of bomb-making and planning attacks targeting specific communities. After the NIA took over in 2011, several witnesses changed their statements and portions of the original evidence were later ruled inadmissible.
Pragya Singh Thakur, who was a member of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), was arrested in 2008. She joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and was elected to Parliament from Bhopal in 2019.
On the day of the verdict, Union Home Minister Amit Shah addressed the Rajya Sabha, stating, “I am proud to say, no Hindu can ever be a terrorist.”
He accused the Congress of coining the term “saffron terror” as part of what he called a political strategy.
All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi said the verdict was a result of prosecutorial failure.
“The Malegaon blast case verdict is disappointing. Six namazis (devotees) were killed in the blast and nearly 100 were injured. They were targeted for their religion. A deliberately shoddy investigation/prosecution is responsible for the acquittal,” he said.
Owaisi also commented on the recent acquittal of all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. He asked whether the Malegaon verdict would be similarly challenged.
“Will the Modi and Fadnavis governments appeal the judgement the way they swiftly demanded stay in the Mumbai train blasts acquittals? Will Maharashtra’s ‘secular’ political parties demand accountability? Who killed the 6 people?” he asked.
While the Maharashtra government has filed an appeal in the train blast case, no official statement has been made regarding a possible appeal in the Malegaon blast case. NIA’s Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal said a decision would be taken after studying the full judgment.
Investigations, Allegations and Retractions
According to the ATS, a series of meetings to plan the blast took place. The agency linked these to Thakur. It said two individuals who escaped arrest, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, built the bomb and placed it in a motorcycle registered in her name.
Witnesses later stepped back from their earlier statements. Many were Army officers. Some said they were pressured to give false testimonies. Some of the accused said they were tortured. The NIA’s final chargesheet acknowledged portions of these claims, which helped the defence during trial.
see as a deliberate softening of the case against the accused (Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons)
Why Did the Court Acquit the Accused?
The judgment, stretching over 1,000 pages, came on July 31 and made public the next evening (August 1). Judge A.K. Lahoti, who presided over the matter, said the explosion was real and caused death and damage, but the prosecution had not submitted evidence that could stand up in court.
“I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration and trauma caused to the 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,” he began the ruling with this statement.
He also directed the state to compensate the families of those killed with Rs 2 lakh each and Rs 50,000 for the injured.
The special NIA judge wrote that the motorcycle used in the blast was not proven to be under Thakur’s possession. He highlighted that she had renounced worldly life long before the attack.
“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,” he said in the judgment.
He also stated that no one had seen her hand over the bike or take part in bomb-making. He mentioned that the bomb may have been placed near the bike, not necessarily 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,” he said.
The judge added that experts had not ruled out the possibility that the bomb could have been placed next to the bike or attached from outside. He also addressed the torture claims and pointed out that Thakur had not raised such allegations before a magistrate on October 24, 2008.
No Proof Purohit Acted Under Orders
The prosecution said the explosive was RDX and linked its source to Purohit’s time in Jammu & Kashmir. But the court said no clear evidence was presented on how the explosive was sourced or moved. The court also found no record of who placed the bike at the blast site or when.
Purohit had told the court that he joined the Abhinav Bharat as part of his military duties. The court disagreed. It said documents showed he was a trustee in the group. But the judge added that nothing in the record proved his superiors had allowed this.
“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,” said the judge.
No Reliable Forensic Basis
Judge Lahoti highlighted that the expert who examined the bike gave a “guess” and had not conducted any scientific test to show the bomb was placed inside the vehicle.
“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,” he said.
Procedural Errors in Invoking UAPA and MCOCA**
The court reviewed how the ATS had based much of its case on confessional statements under MCOCA. But those statements could not be used once MCOCA was dropped in 2016. The NIA had flagged legal issues with how it was applied.
The Judge found the MCOCA sanction was granted without proper judicial review. He also found that the UAPA sanction had similar problems. “Chitkala Zutshi,” he wrote, referring to the then Additional Chief Secretary, “had failed to consult the investigating officer.” Without this, the law’s built-in presumptions could not be used against the accused.
Claim About RSS Chief’s Arrest Rejected
One former ATS officer, Mehboob Mujawar, had said that he was told to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. The court dismissed this. Mujawar had claimed this order came from senior ATS officials and was meant to build a “saffron terror” case. He said he refused due to lack of evidence.
The court instead relied on a different officer’s testimony. Mohan Kulkarni, the case’s main investigator, said Mujawar was only assigned to locate two men (Kalsangra and Dange) who were missing. The court also said Mujawar was not examined as a witness and his statements had no value in this trial.