The Supreme Court and Bombay High Court earlier highlighted key flaws in the investigation against Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Purohit in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. Both were granted bail after courts noted contradictions in witness statements and probe reports by ATS and NIA.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MAHARASHTRA: The special court in Mumbai on Thursday acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
This incident had shaken the state of Maharashtra when, on September 29, 2008, an explosive device kept on a motorcycle exploded near a mosque in Malegaon (Nashik district), killing six people and injuring over 100 others.
Special Judge A K Lahoti, while passing the judgment, clearly stated that although the blast was proven, the prosecution could not prove that the bomb was installed on the said motorcycle.
Earlier, when bail was granted to the two key accused in 2017, both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India had raised serious concerns about the investigation process, especially the contradictions between the reports filed by Maharashtra ATS and the NIA, and the inconsistent testimonies of witnesses.
Bombay High Court’s Observations on Pragya Singh Thakur
In April 2017, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Pragya Thakur. While doing so, the court remarked about the witnesses’ statements in the case:
“Apart from retraction and allegation of torture, their statements give two contradictory versions.”
The High Court, under a bench led by Justice (now retired) Ranjit More, stated that there was some material on record suggesting Thakur’s presence at a meeting in Bhopal, but that:
“The material showed that apart from her, several other persons were also present for the same.”
The bench concluded:
“In our view, the same cannot be considered as circumstance against the Thakur alone, excluding the other participants, especially, now in the absence of any objectionable and incriminating material attributed to her.”
In examining both the ATS and NIA’s findings, the court further noted:
“There were no reasonable grounds for believing that accusations made against her are prima facie true.”
As a result, the court allowed her to be released on bail, stating:
She can avail the benefit of bail “even if the offences alleged against her by ATS are grave and serious ones.”
ALSO READ: Timeline Of 17-Year Long Trial: 2008 Malegaon Blast Case Got A Closure Today
Supreme Court’s Observations on Lt Col Prasad Purohit
In August 2017, the Supreme Court granted bail to Lt Col Purohit after he had already spent more than 8 years and 8 months in jail. The apex court underlined “material contradictions” between the ATS’s original chargesheet and the NIA’s supplementary chargesheet, and held that:
These contradictions “should be tested at the time of trial.”
Further, the Supreme Court acknowledged Purohit’s role as an intelligence officer in the Indian Army and accepted his claim that he informed his senior officers about certain intelligence inputs, denying any conspiracy.
In January 2021, Lt Col Purohit told the Bombay High Court that he was merely doing his duty as an Army intelligence officer. He said he was attending meetings related to the alleged conspiracy only to gather information for national security, especially about a group called Abhinav Bharat, and reported everything to his superiors.
Later in July 2021, Purohit described himself as:
An “unsung hero” of the Indian Army
He told the High Court that:
He had “suffered for nearly nine years,” which he spent in jail before receiving bail.
In January 2023, however, the High Court dismissed Purohit’s plea for being discharged from the case. The court asked a crucial question regarding his role:
“Why he did not avert the bomb blast in the civilian locality of Malegaon, which caused the loss of life of six innocent persons and severe to grievous injuries to about 100 persons.”
This raised doubts about the effectiveness of his intelligence work, despite his claim of attending conspiracy meetings on duty.
Later, in March 2023, the Supreme Court also rejected his appeal against the High Court’s refusal to discharge him from the case.
High Court’s Criticism of NIA’s Delay in Trial
While monitoring the trial in 2022, the Bombay High Court raised concerns about the slow pace of the case and criticised the NIA for dragging the proceedings. The court expressed concern over:
“The waste of judicial time”
This was because the NIA was producing only one witness per hearing.
To improve the situation, the court ordered the special NIA court to:
Submit a fortnightly report on progress in the trial
And also suggested that:
“More than one witness be examined for each hearing, and bailable warrants can be issued against those who do not appear.”
CASE TITLE:
National Investigation Agency vs Pragyasingh Chandrapalsingh Thakur and Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Malegaon Blast Case
Click Here to Read Our Reports on BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
