Malegaon Blast Verdict sparks debate as all accused walk free after 17 years. Is it delayed justice or a political conspiracy? Explore key facts and reactions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Malegaon Bomb Blast Case (2008) occurred on 29th September 2008 near Bhikku Chowk, adjacent to Noorani Masjid in Malegaon, Maharashtra. The blast, triggered through an improvised explosive device (IED) fitted on a motorcycle, resulted in the death of six people and left over 100 injured, predominantly from the Muslim community.
Initially investigated by the Maharashtra ATS, the case gained national attention due to the arrest of Hindu right-wing individuals, including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt. Col. Purohit, marking a significant shift in the usual narrative of terror cases in India. The case was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and after nearly 17 years of legal proceedings, the Special NIA Court delivered its final verdict on 31st July 2025, acquitting all the accused due to a lack of credible evidence.
ALSO READ: Timeline Of 17-Year Long Trial: 2008 Malegaon Blast Case Got A Closure Today
Background of the Case
In the 2008 Malegaon blast case, several accused, including Pragya Singh Thakur (A-1), Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit (A-9), and others, are being tried under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Explosive Substances Act (ESA). The charges relate to a bomb explosion that occurred on 29th September 2008 during the holy month of Ramzan at a busy public location in Malegaon, Maharashtra. The blast, caused using an improvised explosive device (IED) fitted in an LML Freedom motorcycle, led to the death of six people and injured over 100.
Initial investigations were conducted by the Local Crime Branch (LCB) Nashik Gramin and Azad Nagar Police, later taken over by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Mumbai, and finally by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), New Delhi.
Key findings included:
- The motorcycle used in the blast was registered in the name of A-1 (Pragya Thakur).
- Explosives used included RDX and Ammonium Nitrate.
- Abhinav Bharat, an organization allegedly formed by A-9 (Lt. Col. Purohit), is accused of orchestrating the conspiracy to create a “Hindu Rashtra” and incite communal tensions.
- The accused held secret meetings, transported arms and explosives, and trained individuals for terrorist activities.
- Subsequent investigations revealed tampering of evidence and alleged coercion of witnesses during the ATS phase.
- NIA’s reinvestigation led to some accused being exonerated (including Pragya Thakur and Purohit), and charges under MCOCA were dropped due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
- The final charge sheets were filed by ATS and NIA, with ongoing efforts to locate absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange.
Arguments on Behalf of Prosecution and Defence
Prosecution’s Submissions:
In compliance with directions from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, the matter was heard on a day-to-day basis over more than 10 months. Arguments were heard in detail, including submissions by A-5, who appeared in person. The case record includes thousands of documents submitted by ATS and NIA, along with charge sheets.
Special Public Prosecutors Anushree Rasal and Avinash Rasal, along with Advocate Shahid Nadeem (for the intervener), contended that the prosecution had examined 323 witnesses whose testimonies were consistent, credible, and reliable. They argued that the evidence established that the accused conspired and held clandestine meetings, eventually executing a bomb blast in Malegaon using an LML Freedom motorcycle.
They alleged that accused A-5, A-6, A-9, and A-10 raised substantial funds to support terrorist activities and the unlawful organization. A-9 was said to have misused funds for personal gains, including home construction and weapons procurement. A-6 allegedly acted as the treasurer of “Abhinav Bharat”, distributing funds per decisions taken in secret meetings. Valid consents and sanction orders under the Explosive Substances Act (ESA) and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) were submitted by authorities, and the prosecution claimed the overall evidence proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In addition to oral submissions, the prosecution filed written arguments and relied on several precedents, including:
- State vs. Nalini
- Anwar P.K. vs. P.K. Bashir (2014)
- Neeraj Dutta vs. State
- Hari vs. State of U.P.
- Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana
Defence Submissions:
Defence counsel and A-5 (in person) argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. They claimed that the accused were falsely implicated to serve political or communal interests and were made scapegoats by ATS. Several accused were allegedly detained illegally, tortured, and shown as arrested much later through falsified police entries.
ALSO READ: Malegaon Blast Case | “Who killed the 6 people?”: Asaduddin Owaisi On The Verdict
The defence highlighted that many key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and accused ATS officers of coercion and abuse during the investigation. It was also contended that the sanction orders under the UAPA and ESA were invalid, issued mechanically, and without independent application of mind. Additionally, since A-9 was serving in the Army at the relevant time, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was obtained, rendering the proceedings legally defective.
The defence insisted that there was no concrete or clinching evidence of conspiracy or terrorist activities, and that the case relied heavily on assumptions and conjecture. They prayed for acquittal.
Defence counsel relied on various case laws, including:
- Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration (1976)
- Mahesh Kariman Tirki & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (2024)
- Gangadhar @ Gangaram vs. State of M.P. (2020)
- Khudeswar Dutta vs. State of Assam (1998)
- Salim Akhtar @ Mota vs. State of U.P. (2003)
- Avtar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (2002)
- Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai vs. State of Maharashtra (2022) — on interpretation of Section 6 of the NIA Act
Court’s Observation and Final Verdict
The Special NIA Court’s judgment in the Malegaon Bomb Blast Case (2008) provides a comprehensive critique of the prosecution’s investigation and evidentiary standards. The court pointed out that the burden of proof in a criminal trial lies solely on the prosecution, and in this case, it failed to establish a direct and credible link between the accused and the bombing.
The Court stated,
“However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or “suspicion.
It emphasized that many witnesses turned hostile, and the forensic and circumstantial evidence was either inconsistent or inadequately corroborated.
The Court further said,
“No doubt, the 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. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden rests entirely upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, based on admissible and credible evidence.”
The court acquitted seven accused, including Pragya Singh Thakur (A-1) and Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit (A-9), of all charges under the IPC, UAPA, and Explosive Substances Act, citing lack of evidence. Bail bonds were canceled, and sureties discharged.
Authorities were directed to file charges separately against absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange upon arrest. The court also ordered preservation of evidence, issuance of fresh bail bonds under CrPC Section 437-A, and compensation to victims’ families.
The court directed that all victims and injured individuals are entitled to compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. The prosecuting agency must prepare and forward a list of victims to DLSA Mumbai, which will then ensure payment of Rs 2 lakh to families of the deceased and Rs 50,000 to each injured person.
Accused & Allegations
Pragya Singh Thakur:
Pragya Singh Thakur, a former BJP MP also known as Swami Purna Chetananand Giri, was alleged to be a key conspirator in the Malegaon blast case. The prosecution claimed that an LML Freedom motorcycle, registered in her name, was used to carry the bomb that triggered the explosion.
Allegations:
- Allegedly handed over her motorcycle for use in the Malegaon blast, according to the prosecution.
- Accused of participating in conspiracy meetings under the banner of Abhinav Bharat, held at Indore Circuit House and Ujjain, where the bombing plan was allegedly discussed.
Court’s Findings:
The court examined the allegations against Pragya Singh Thakur (A‑1) and found no credible evidence linking her to the Malegaon blast. Although the prosecution claimed that the LML Freedom motorcycle used in the explosion was registered in her name, the court noted that there was no conclusive proof that she either owned or had control over the vehicle at the relevant time.
Expert examination had only partially retrieved the chassis and engine numbers, and the court highlighted the failure to explore alternative possibilities. It was also observed that Thakur had renounced worldly possessions after taking Sanyas, and evidence suggested the motorcycle had been in the exclusive possession of absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra (AA‑1) well before the incident.
The court further rejected the claim that the bomb was strapped inside the vehicle, calling it speculative and unsupported by scientific analysis. It ruled that the damage to the motorcycle could also have resulted from explosives being placed or hung outside the vehicle. Additionally, the court found no reliable proof of Thakur’s involvement in conspiracy meetings in Indore and Ujjain, as key witnesses either retracted their statements or alleged coercion.
Notably, the NIA had itself exonerated her in its supplementary chargesheet. Based on this, the court concluded that there was no evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ramesh Shivji Upadhyaya:
Major (Retd.) Ramesh Shivji Upadhyaya was accused of being involved in multiple conspiracy meetings related to the Malegaon blast and of possessing a laptop allegedly containing incriminating digital evidence linking him to the plot.
Allegations:
Major (Retd.) Ramesh Shivji Upadhyaya was alleged to have taken part in conspiracy meetings held at Faridabad, Bhonsala Military School, and Bhopal. He was also accused of possessing a laptop, purportedly seized during his arrest, which allegedly contained digital evidence linked to the blast conspiracy.
Court’s Findings:
The Court observed serious procedural lapses in the seizure of Major Upadhyaya’s laptop, noting it was neither opened in the presence of witnesses nor properly sealed. The voice sample analysis meant to link him to alleged conversations was found inconclusive and lacked the mandatory Section 65B certificate, making it inadmissible. Similarly, mobile interceptions and CDRs were rejected due to improper certification and the non-examination of the officer who compiled them.
Sameer Kulkarni:
Sameer Sharad Kulkarni, also known as Chanakya Sameer, was accused of facilitating the logistics of the alleged conspiracy by booking a hall for planning meetings and sending a purportedly incriminating mobile message. The prosecution alleged his active role in organizing aspects of the Malegaon blast plot.
Allegations:
Sameer Kulkarni was alleged to have participated in conspiracy meetings held at Bhopal, Indore, and Ujjain, where the bombing was reportedly planned. He was also accused of booking the Ram Mandir Hall in Bhopal for one such meeting and of sending a mobile message that allegedly linked him to the Malegaon blast.
Court’s Findings:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish Sameer Kulkarni’s involvement in booking the hall in Bhopal. The manager of Shri Ram Mandir — where the hall was allegedly reserved — did not identify Kulkarni, and no identification parade was conducted. The booking letter showed handwriting inconsistencies and was not examined by a handwriting expert. The alleged incriminating mobile message also lacked credibility due to contradictions in witness statements and the arrest panchanama, with the electronic expert admitting it could have been altered. Additionally, the claimed financial transactions linking Kulkarni to the conspiracy were unproven, with doubts over the authenticity of bank records.
Ajay Eknath Rahirkar:
Ajay Rahirkar was accused of participating in conspiracy meetings and allegedly receiving funds through an Angadiya courier service to help finance the terror plot.
Allegations:
Ajay Rahirkar was allegedly involved in conspiracy meetings held at places such as Indore and Ujjain, and was accused of receiving funds via the Angadiya service to support the Malegaon blast plot.
Court’s Findings:
The Court identified irregularities in Rahirkar’s arrest and the seizure process, noting that articles taken from his residence were not properly sealed, raising concerns of possible tampering. The handwriting specimen attributed to him was also deemed unreliable, with flaws in its collection and insufficient basis for the expert analysis. Furthermore, the allegation that he received funds via the Angadiya service was unproven, as key witnesses contradicted the prosecution, and some even claimed their statements were made under police pressure, undermining their credibility.
Lt Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit:
Prasad Shrikant Purohit, a serving Army officer at the time, was accused of acquiring and storing RDX used in the Malegaon blast. He was also allegedly involved in multiple conspiracy meetings where the attack was planned.
Allegations:
Prasad Shrikant Purohit was allegedly involved in procuring and storing RDX at his residence, which was believed to be used in the blast. He was also accused of attending several conspiracy meetings at locations including Pachmarhi, Ujjain, Indore, and a farmhouse in Nashik, where the bomb plot was purportedly discussed.
Court’s Findings:
The Court found no credible evidence linking Prasad Shrikant Purohit to the storage or transportation of RDX. Forensic analysis revealed no traces of explosives at his residence, and the prosecution failed to establish the source, transport, or fitting of the RDX in the motorcycle used in the blast.
It was also noted that no documentation or witness testimony confirmed Purohit’s posting in Kashmir, where he was alleged to have sourced the RDX. The Court emphasized that transporting RDX involves strict formalities and security clearances, none of which were proven by the prosecution.
Furthermore, the alleged conspiracy meetings were unsubstantiated, as several witnesses either denied Purohit’s presence or turned hostile.
Regarding the funds he received from Sameer Kulkarni, the Court accepted the explanation that the money was for personal use, such as house construction, not for any unlawful activity.
Additionally, procedural lapses in the seizure of Purohit’s laptop and digital records rendered the electronic evidence inadmissible in court.
Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi @ Dayanand Pandey:
Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, also known as Swami Amrutanand Devtirth, was accused of participating in conspiracy meetings and receiving a laptop allegedly containing evidence linked to the bombing plot.
Allegations:
Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi was allegedly involved in conspiracy meetings held at locations like Bhopal and Indore, where the bombing plot was said to have been discussed. He was also accused of receiving a laptop during a meeting in Faridabad, which reportedly contained incriminating digital evidence related to the case.
Court’s Findings:
The Court highlighted inconsistencies in witness accounts about the alleged Faridabad meeting, with some witnesses denying its occurrence and others stating they were coerced into giving statements. Additionally, the seizure of Dwivedi’s laptop was improperly documented, raising concerns about its authenticity. The voice sample analysis was also deemed inadmissible due to the absence of required certifications and procedural lapses.
Sudhakar Onkarnath Chaturvedi @ Chanakya Sudhakar:
Sudhakar Chaturvedi was accused of assembling the bomb in his rented house and of possessing RDX used in the blast.
Allegations:
It was alleged that the bomb was assembled at his residence, where traces of RDX were reportedly found. He was further accused of being involved in the conspiracy and assisting in the preparation of the explosives used in the attack.
Court’s Findings:
The Court observed that Chaturvedi’s house was not under his exclusive control, and there was no direct evidence linking him to the bomb assembly. The RDX traces found were minimal, and the house lock was not seized, raising doubts about the integrity of the search. Additionally, the sanction under the Explosive Substances Act was granted mechanically, without proper evaluation. Procedural lapses during the search and arrest further undermined the prosecution’s case.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs. Pragya Singh Chandrapalsingh Thakur & Others
Special NIA Case No. 01/2016
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Malegaon Bomb Blast Case (2008)
