Mumbai, August 1, 2025 – In a landmark verdict, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case on July 31, 2025, citing insufficient reliable evidence and significant procedural flaws in the investigation. The decision, delivered by Special Judge A.K. Lahoti, marks the closure of one of India’s most protracted and politically charged terrorism trials, which spanned nearly 17 years. The blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, in Malegaon, Maharashtra, killed six people and injured over 100, sparking widespread communal tensions. Allegations of political motives and investigative misconduct, including claims by a retired officer that he was directed to fabricate a terrorism narrative, have cast a long shadow over the case.

The Incident: A Blast in a Communally Sensitive Town

On September 29, 2008, at around 9:35 p.m., a low-intensity bomb strapped to an LML Freedom motorcycle detonated near Bhikku Chowk in Malegaon, a town approximately 200 km from Mumbai in Maharashtra’s Nashik district. The explosion occurred in a Muslim-majority area during the holy month of Ramzan, just before the Hindu festival of Navratri, amplifying fears of communal unrest. The blast, caused by an improvised explosive device (IED), killed six people and injured 95, according to the court’s final assessment, though initial reports cited 101 injuries.

The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), led by Hemant Karkare (who was later killed in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks), initially investigated the case. Early suspicions pointed to Muslim extremist groups, given the timing and location of the blast. However, the probe took a dramatic turn when the ATS alleged involvement of Hindu right-wing extremists, leading to the controversial use of the term “saffron terror” in public discourse.

The Accused and the Investigation

The ATS arrested seven individuals in connection with the blast, including high-profile figures such as Pragya Singh Thakur, a former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP from Bhopal, and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, a serving military intelligence officer at the time. The other accused were Major (Retd.) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni. The prosecution alleged that the accused were linked to Abhinav Bharat, a Hindu nationalist organization, and had conspired to orchestrate the blast to incite communal violence and target the Muslim community.

Key claims by the ATS included:

• The motorcycle used in the blast was registered in Pragya Thakur’s name.
• Lt. Col. Purohit sourced RDX from Kashmir and stored it at his residence, with the bomb assembled at Sudhakar Chaturvedi’s home in Nashik.
• Absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, allegedly associates of Thakur, planted and detonated the bomb.

The ATS invoked stringent laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), to bolster the case. However, the investigation faced immediate scrutiny for alleged procedural irregularities, including claims of custodial torture and coerced confessions.

In April 2011, the case was transferred to the NIA, a central agency established post the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The NIA’s probe revealed inconsistencies in the ATS’s findings. In 2016, the NIA dropped MCOCA charges due to insufficient evidence and sought to discharge Pragya Thakur, but the special court declined, citing prima facie evidence against her. The trial began in 2018, with final arguments concluding on April 19, 2025.

The Verdict: Insufficient Evidence and Procedural Flaws

On July 31, 2025, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti delivered a scathing critique of the prosecution’s case, acquitting all seven accused on all charges, including those under UAPA, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Arms Act. The court’s key observations included:

• Lack of Reliable Evidence: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired to execute the blast. The court noted that “mere suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof.”
• Unproven Motorcycle Link: The prosecution could not conclusively establish that the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Pragya Thakur, as the chassis number was wiped out, and the engine number was unclear.
• No Proof of RDX Involvement: Allegations that Lt. Col. Purohit sourced and stored RDX were unsupported, with no evidence of bomb assembly at his or Chaturvedi’s residence.
• Procedural Irregularities: The court highlighted defective sanction orders under UAPA, rendering key charges invalid, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, with several witnesses turning hostile.
• Manipulated Medical Records: The court found that some medical certificates submitted by the ATS were fabricated or issued by unauthorized practitioners, leading to a corrected injury count of 95 instead of 101.

The court also ordered an inquiry into serious allegations against ATS officer Shekhar Bagade, accused of planting RDX traces at Sudhakar Chaturvedi’s residence in Nashik’s Deolali cantonment. Judge Lahoti noted that Bagade’s conduct “raised serious suspicion” and lacked explanation, tilting toward a “theory of planting.”

While acknowledging the “agony, frustration, and trauma” caused by the blast, the court emphasized that convictions cannot be based on moral grounds or public sentiment. It ordered compensation of ₹2 lakh for the families of the deceased and ₹50,000 for each injured victim.

Allegations of Political Motives and Investigative Misconduct

The case has been mired in controversy, with the accused and their supporters alleging political motives behind the investigation. A retired officer’s claim, reported in media, that he was directed to arrest a prominent figure to fabricate a terrorism narrative, added fuel to these allegations. Lt. Col. Purohit, who spent nine years in custody before being granted bail in 2017, maintained that he was a military intelligence officer infiltrating Abhinav Bharat and reporting to his superiors, not orchestrating terrorism. He alleged custodial torture by ATS officials and thanked the court for restoring his ability to serve the nation.

Pragya Thakur, who also spent nearly a decade in jail before her bail in 2017, described the verdict as a “victory for Hindutva” and claimed she was illegally detained and tortured. She accused the ATS of fabricating evidence to propagate the “saffron terror” narrative. Other accused, including Upadhyay and Kulkarni, echoed claims of torture and procedural violations.

The NIA’s 2011 chargesheet had already criticized the ATS for alleged lapses, including forced confessions and planted evidence. The court’s order for an inquiry into Bagade’s conduct and fake medical certificates further underscores these concerns.

Reactions and Political Ramifications

The verdict elicited sharp reactions across the political spectrum. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath hailed the acquittal as a triumph of “Satyamev Jayate” (truth prevails), accusing the Congress of creating the “myth” of saffron terror to malign Hindu saints and nationalists. Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde called it the “end of a dark chapter,” asserting that “truth is never defeated.” BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis declared, “Terrorism is never saffron, nor will it ever be.”

Conversely, Congress leader Digvijay Singh emphasized that no religion supports terrorism, stating, “No Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or anyone from any religion can be a terrorist; all religions promote love and peace.” AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi called the verdict “disappointing,” reflecting discontent among some opposition leaders.

Victims’ families expressed outrage, with advocate Shahid Nadeem, representing them, announcing plans to challenge the acquittal in the Bombay High Court. Nadeem criticized the “failure” of probe agencies, noting that hostile witnesses and prosecutorial lapses weakened the case. A victim’s kin alleged the verdict was pronounced “under pressure.”

A Case That Shaped Narratives

The Malegaon blast case became a flashpoint in India’s discourse on terrorism, communalism, and justice. The initial framing of the case as an instance of “saffron terror” sparked intense debate, with critics arguing it was a politically motivated attempt to target Hindu nationalists. The acquittal has reignited these discussions, with legal experts calling for greater prosecutorial rigor and investigative accountability in terrorism cases.

The case’s 17-year journey saw multiple investigative agencies, five different judges, and over 1,300 pages of final arguments. The trial’s conclusion leaves unresolved questions about justice for the victims and the integrity of India’s counter-terrorism framework. As the NIA has not yet indicated whether it will appeal, the focus now shifts to the inquiry into ATS misconduct and the victims’ planned challenge in the High Court.

For the people of Malegaon, the verdict is a reminder of a tragedy that remains unpunished. As one victim’s relative told News18, “The bomb blast has been proved by the court, but justice has not been served.” The Malegaon blast case, with its complex interplay of evidence, politics, and procedure, will continue to resonate in India’s legal and social landscape.

By telugutone News Desk

Sources: The Hindu, NDTV, The Tribune, India Today, News18, The Indian Express, The Economic Times, Nagpur Today, Open The Magazine, BBC