A Spectacle of Injustice Undone: After 19 years, Bombay HC’s acquittal in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case recognises the (mis) use of ‘torture for confession’

On July 18, 2024, a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices Anil Kilor and S.C. Chandak overturned the conviction of 12 men in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings case (popularly dubbed the 7/11 case), a tragedy that killed 189 people and injured 820 more. Apart from other significant findings, the Court on Monday (July 21, 2025) while pronouncing the acquittals stated that the prosecution had “utterly failed” to prove the charges against them. The police’s case was that the accused persons had assembled bombs in a pressure cooker and had planted it on the train in the evening, which is a very busy time for commuters in the city.  

The acquittal came nearly eight years after a special MCOCA court had sentenced five of the accused to death and the others to life imprisonment in 2015. The special, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Court had sentenced five of the accused to death sentence and the remainder seven to life imprisonment under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), and Explosives Acts.In all, the accused were in jail for 19 years in jail without a break, with one of the 12 accused — Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari –dying in 2021 to COVID-19 infection while he was lodged in Nagpur prison.

This judgment is not merely a reversal of a trial court verdict—it is a stinging indictment of investigative lapses, prosecutorial failure, and judicial oversight. The High Court held that the prosecution’s case suffered from “serious infirmities,” rendering the conviction unsafe and unjust.

Through the 19 years of incarceration, these men have been denied bail. Even in acute situations like the Covid-19 pandemic or when they lost near relatives, the men were denied any relief from prison. Today, July 21, 2025, the high court has released them on a simple “Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond” which essentially means that they can walk out of jal without having to make any financial payment for their release.

Background of the case 

On July 11, 2006, a series of seven coordinated bomb explosions struck first-class compartments of Mumbai’s suburban trains during peak hours. The scale, precision, and horror of the attacks led to an immediate manhunt. Within months, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) –appointed by the Congress government that was in power at the time– claimed to have cracked the case and arrested 13 men, all of whom were Muslim and belonged to marginalised socio-economic backgrounds. Several cases handled by the ATS around that period under the Congress leadership, including the Malegaon 2006 blast case, have raised serious questions of the communal biases in the police and wrong implication of Muslim youth in terror cases. For instance, in the Malegaon 2006 blast case, the Muslim men were eventually exonerated after the National Investigating Agency (NIA) took over and the new line of investigations showed that the terror blast was the handiwork of accused persons belonging to Hindu community.

The prosecution in the 7/11 train blasts case alleged a cross-border conspiracy involving Pakistan’s ISI, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and operatives of the banned SIMI (Students’ Islamic Movement of India), with support from Indian collaborators. The case proceeded –as mentioned above –under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), along with charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Explosives Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA.

Trial, conviction, and sentencing

The trial began in 2007 before a special MCOCA court. Relying heavily on confessions, circumstantial evidence, call data records, and alleged recoveries, the prosecution secured convictions in 2015 for 12 of the accused.

• Five were sentenced to death
• Seven were awarded life imprisonment

One accused, Wahid Shaikh, was acquitted in 2015 after nine years of incarceration.

However, right from the outset, defense lawyers and human rights groups flagged serious concerns:

• Most of the accused had retracted their confessions, alleging torture
• Witness testimonies were inconsistent and contradictory
• Key forensic links to explosives were weak or inconclusive
• Call data location mapping had been misrepresented or was scientifically insufficient
• Parallel investigations pointed to an entirely different group of perpetrators

The High Court’s Findings: A collapse of prosecution integrity

The High Court’s 671-paged judgment systematically dismantled the prosecution’s theory. The following were key findings:

1. Unreliable confessions: The Court held that confessions made under MCOCA, even if admissible, must be scrutinized with heightened caution. It noted that:

• The retractions by the accused were immediate and consistent
• There was credible evidence of custodial torture
• Medical records and affidavits indicated coercion
• Multiple confessions were similar in wording, suggesting scripting

2. Weak circumstantial evidence: The prosecution failed to convincingly link any of the accused to the procurement, assembly, or placement of the bombs. Among the failures:

• No eyewitnesses placed any of the accused at train stations
• Forensic tests on alleged bomb-making sites were inconclusive
• Travel routes and maps allegedly recovered from the accused were publicly available

3. Call data records and location mapping flawed: The ATS relied heavily on mobile phone data to show the accused were in contact and present near blast sites. But the Court found:

• Cell tower locations had been selectively interpreted
• Mapping did not conclusively place the accused at blast locations
• Some mobile numbers were never conclusively linked to the accused

4. Fabricated recoveries and witness inconsistencies

• Several “recovered” items were found to be planted or inadmissibly recovered without independent witnesses.
• Key prosecution witnesses, including police officers and panch witnesses, gave contradictory testimonies.
• One key witness had previously testified in an unrelated Ghatkopar blast case, casting doubt on impartiality

5. Discarded lead of pressure cookers

• Investigators originally flagged statements from shopkeepers about “Kashmiri-looking youths” buying pressure cookers, but dropped these leads during trial, without credible reason. Yet the prosecution later reintroduced the theory—revealing an arbitrary and inconsistent investigative approach

6. Illegal MCOCA sanction

• Per Section 23(1) of MCOCA, a senior official’s (Addl. CP S.K. Jaiswal) sanction was mandatory but not substantively proven—the sanction letter was never produced from the witness box. The High Court struck it down

The Acquitted: A decade lost in the shadow of guilt

The following table details the 12 acquitted men and their sentences:

Role of defence lawyers and long fight for justice

The acquittal owes much to a determined legal team and families that never gave up. At the start of the investigation itself, on September 29, 2006, over two months after the blast, the then police commissioner of Mumbai police, A.N. Roy had claimed that two Kashmiri men had gone to a local market and purchased pressure cookers from two shops. These pressure cookers, Roy had claimed, were used in assembling the highly explosive bombs. The blast came to be known as ‘pressure cooker blast case’. 

As what has increasingly become the norm for reportage of “terror cases”, media reporting since the blasts was almost entirely based on what the police would share in the press conferences. So for months after the ghastly blasts, all the men were accused of a whole range of things, from visiting Pakistan for arms training to storing Research Department Explosives (RDX), ammonium nitrate, nitrite and petroleum hydrocarbon oil in their houses. The pressure cooker theory soon vanished and it found no mention in the chargesheet. Eight years later, at the time of the final submission before the MCOCA court, the special public prosecutor in the case, Raja Thakare, reintroduced the theory. Advocate Ramakrishnan and her associate Rai, who appeared for the accused in the High Court, –in their final submissions– systematically punctured these gaps in the investigation. The police had claimed that two months after the serial bomb blasts, two men had come forward to claim that in May 2006, two ‘Kashmiri-looking youths’ had bought pressure cookers in large quantities. The statements of these two men were recorded. These two men should have been treated as crucial witnesses but the investigating agency decided to simply drop their statements at the time of the trial, terming them as “not credible”. What this meant was that a foundational brick in the prosecution’s ostensible theory was shaky.

“It is impossible to believe the version of witnesses that accused had mentioned pressure cookers in their interrogation in September, because the story of pressure cookers only occurred to ATS after 28.09.2006 after recording statements of shopkeepers that Kashmiri youths had bought pressure cookers en masse. Throughout this period, ATS said that the accused were giving them no lead. In fact, not a single remand application was taken on the ground that they had to identify pressure cookers or the accused had talked about pressure cookers,” the counsel for the accused had argued. The lawyers also raised questions about the application of the draconian MCOCA law in the case. Section 23(1) MCOCA, the lawyers pointed out, requires prior approval of a police officer not below the rank of the Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) before any information about a commission of an offence under MCOCA is recorded. The officer, S.K. Jaiswal, the then deputy Inspector General of Police/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai, who allegedly had given the required approval, was never examined.

The HC, accepting the argument, noted in its judgement: “Shri. Jaiswal, who granted the prior approval, did not enter into the witness box to prove the contents of the letter of prior approval. Mere identification of signature of Shri. Jaiswal by PW-174 does not prove the contents of prior approval.”

Former Orissa High Court Chief Justice and senior advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar represented two of the accused — Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh. A string of lawyers, including arguing counsels Nitya Ramakrishnan, Yug Mohit Chaudhry, S. Nagamuthu and S. Muralidhar, along with Wahab Shaikh, Sharif Shaikh, Payoshi Roy and Stuti Rai, among many others, were also part of the legal team in the High Court on behalf of the accused. They had contended that the prosecution case was flawed and that the trial court erred in convicting the accused. Raja Thackeray was the special public prosecutor appointed in the case. 

In his submissions at the penultimate stage, as reported by LiveLaw, Muralidhar described the investigation as biased and media-driven, stating:

“Innocent people are sent to jail and then years later when they are released from jail there is no possibility for reconstruction of their lives. From last 17 years these accused are in jail. They haven’t stepped out even for a day. The majority of their prime life is gone. In such cases where there is a public outcry, the approach by police is always to first assume guilt and then go from there. Police officers take press conferences in such cases, and the way the media covers the case, it kind of decides the guilt of a person. In many such terror cases, investigating agencies have failed us miserably”.

He urged the court to consider the irreversible damage done — years lost, families stigmatised, and no closure for the victims or accused. Wahid Shaikh, who was acquitted in 2015, led the public campaign ‘Innocence Network’ and became a vocal critic of India’s terror trial processes. He published books, pursued a PhD, and coordinated legal aid for the remaining 12 accuse. 

A legal reckoning and its implications

This case serves as a searing indictment of:

• Investigative tunnel vision: The ATS prematurely closed the investigation around a preferred narrative and failed to pursue alternative leads.
• Judicial deference to state narratives: The trial court accepted questionable confessions and unreliable evidence without applying proper legal standards.
• Delays in appellate review: The eight-year delay in hearing the appeals effectively meant the accused had served most of their sentence even before acquittal.

The Bombay High Court’s verdict does more than acquit—it restores a sliver of institutional faith, while also raising deep concerns about how India investigates and prosecutes terror. For the acquitted, however, it may be too late. Years lost in prison, families destroyed, and reputations ruined—without compensation, without apology.

Systemic Implications: No closure for victims, no accountability for investigators

While the acquitted walk free, the victims of the 7/11 blasts are left without justice or answers. The ATS, which led the investigation, has now seen two major terror cases of that era — this and the Malegaon 2006 blasts — unravel due to procedural misconduct and communal bias.

In Malegaon, too, Muslim men were first arrested, only to be later absolved when the National Investigation Agency uncovered the role of Hindutva extremist groups. The parallels reinforce growing concerns that India’s terror probes are often driven more by political pressure and profiling than by forensic rigour.

Abdul Wahid Shaikh & the Innocence Network

Wahid, who was a school teacher at the time of his arrest, transformed into a fierce activist on his release in 2015. He started ‘Innocence Network’, a campaign for the release of the 12 others. He wrote books on his life in jail, researched on the Indian criminal justice system and obtained a PhD degree recently on the same. He, along with the  Jamiat Ulema-i-Hindu, also worked meticulously on the case. 

Conclusion: A broken system exposed

The 2006 Mumbai train blasts case will now be remembered not just for its brutality, but for the colossal miscarriage of justice it occasioned. The High Court’s judgment reaffirms the fundamental tenet of criminal law: that the burden of proof lies on the State, and every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The case calls for immediate reforms in anti-terror investigations, greater prosecutorial accountability, and the establishment of a robust compensation framework for the wrongfully accused.

What also remains a question is the crucial issue of reparation and or compensation for the accused and their families given the loss of lives, livelihood and utter ostracisation by society. The penalty that ought to be paid by police officers (in this case from the ATS Mumbai) responsible for the investigative lapses is also a loophole in the system that provides no succour to those wrongfully accused.

Related:

One More Innocent Terror Accused, One More Book But Will Our System Respond?

No innocent should ever be jailed, my life is dedicated to get other innocents released: Abdul Wahid Shaikh

Bombay HC grants bail to Sanatan Sanstha and Hindu Janjagruti Samiti Members

2008 Jaipur blasts: Rajasthan HC acquits all four who were given death penalty

Malegaon blast case: Court rejects Pragya’s plea seeking exemption from appearing for trail

After 23 years in Prison on false charges, five Men walk out free in Samleti Blast case