Special NIA Court highlights major contradictions between ATS and NIA in Malegaon blast probe. Judge cites flawed investigation, lack of evidence, and witness torture.
Mumbai: On August 1, the Special NIA Court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
The court’s detailed verdict, running over 1,000 pages, sharply criticized the inconsistencies and contradictions between the investigations conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
ALSO READ: Timeline Of 17-Year Long Trial: 2008 Malegaon Blast Case Got A Closure Today
The Malegaon blast that took place in 2008 had killed six people and injured more than 100. Initially, the Maharashtra ATS carried out the investigation, but in 2011, the case was transferred to the NIA, which filed a supplementary chargesheet in 2016. However, the two agencies reached very different conclusions.
Special Judge AK Lahoti, who delivered the judgment, pointed out several discrepancies between the ATS and NIA’s findings.
The court said,
“The investigating officer of NIA specifically mentioned the reasons in the chargesheet for arriving at certain conclusion and not agree fully on material aspects to the earlier investigation carried out by the investigating officers of ATS. PW-321 (Dy.SP Anil Dubey) has also admitted that, they found several inherent legal lacunas /complications in the charge-sheet of ATS which they had filed on record. He also admitted that to the some extend the investigation conducted by ATS was flawed investigation. Thus, the opinion and conclusion drawn by both the investigating agencies are fairly different and dissenting on various material aspects.”
The judge stressed that both agencies disagreed on key facts such as who assembled the explosive device, where the RDX was fitted, and how the motorcycle used in the blast was transported.
The judgment read,
“It is necessary to mention that, both the premier Investigating Agencies i.e. ATS and NIA, are having dissenting view on the aforesaid aspects. They do not agree with each others view as they have revealed different things on the aforesaid point during course of their own investigation,”
According to the ATS, Lt. Col. Purohit had brought the RDX from Kashmir and stored it in his home.
“As per ATS, the Court said the source of the RDX was Lt. Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit; he brought it from Kashmir and kept it in the cupboard of his house.”
But the NIA’s version was different — that two other accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, possessed the LML Freedom Motorcycle, and one Dhansingh transported it with the bomb from another accused’s house in Indore.
The court stated,
“Thus, in short, as per ATS case the RDX was fitted in the house of A-11 by A-9 [Purohit] with the help of other co-accused. Whereas, NIA case depicts that it was fitted at Indore and brought to Malegaon from Sendhawa bus stand. Thus, there is material variance in their charge-sheet and both the investigation agencies are not consistent with each other on the material aspects like, fitting, transporting and involvement of the accused,”
The court also questioned whether Purohit was even posted in Kashmir during the time alleged by the ATS.
“Admittedly, for transportation of RDX, several formalities are required to be completed along with several permissions. Transportation of RDX cannot be done like other articles. There are several checks and restrictions for the transportation of RDX. Not a single witness has deposed that anyone had seen A-9 during his posting at Kashmir at a specific place or for a particular period, or that he had procured the RDX, or that he had brought the RDX. Thus, in the absence of any positive evidence, I am not inclined to accept that A-9 has brought any RDX from Kashmir as alleged,”
the judge said while rejecting the ATS’s version.
ALSO READ: Malegaon Blast Case | “Who killed the 6 people?”: Asaduddin Owaisi On The Verdict
One of the most serious issues highlighted by the court was the alleged torture of witnesses by the ATS. The NIA officer himself reportedly admitted to this during the trial.
“The PW-321 has admitted in his cross examination which clearly shows that, during their investigation of NIA, it was transpired that statement of several witnesses is recorded by ATS by using force. They were illegally detained and tortured by ATS,”
the court noted. This referred specifically to the statements made by witnesses about conspiracy meetings before the blast.
“Statement of several witnesses is recorded by ATS by using force. They were illegally detained and tortured by ATS.”
Regarding the prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the court noted another failure — this time on the part of the NIA, which did not seek the required sanction from the Central Government.
The judge observed,
“Thus, aforesaid admissions itself speak that, NIA has never applied for sanction or placed the proposal before Competent Authority of Central Government for getting sanction against the accused. The reasons behind it can be gathered from the testimony of this witness that; it was within their knowledge that ATS obtained sanction and second one is they had dissenting opinion about the evidence collected by ATS during the course of investigation. Their own charge-sheet depicts that, they were not in consonance with the investigation done by ATS. They found various witnesses’ statement being recorded by ATS by browbeating the witnesses,”
In summary, the Special Court’s ruling did not just acquit the accused — it exposed a major rift between two of India’s top investigative bodies.
“Thus, there is a material variance in their charge sheets and both the investigation agencies are not consistent with each other on the material aspects like fitting, transporting and involvement of accused,”
the court reiterated, pointing to a deeply flawed and conflicted prosecution.
Case Title:
State of Maharashtra vs. Pragyasingh Chandrapalsingh Thakur
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Malegaon Blast Case
