The Nanded blasts of 2006 and 2008 have been contentious due to their implications on communal dynamics, investigation processes, and judicial outcomes. The juxtaposition of the fact-finding report by a group of Citizens consisting of Justice BG Kolse Patil (former judge) and Teesta Setalvad, journalist and human rights defender back in February 2007and the recent judgment, which termed the explosions as “accidents,” raises questions about evidence interpretation, investigative integrity, and judicial reasoning. This report deconstructs the case using the available documents: the detailed fact-finding report and the Nanded court judgment pronounced on January 4, 2025

Members of the Concerned Citizens Inquiry: Justice (Retd) BG Kolse Patil, Pune (Chairperson) Teesta Setalvad, Mumbai (Convener) and Arvind Deshmukh, Nagpur (Member) Local Support: Vijay Gabhane, Altaf Ahmed, Riyaz Siddiqui, Pradeep Nagarpurkar, Suryakant Wani, Feroz Khan, PD Joshi Patodekar, PG Dasturkar, Chandrakant Gavane. Technical Experts: Medico-Legal and Forensic Experts, Pune (requested anonymity).

Interviews Conducted by CCI Team:  SP Fatehsingh Patil of the district, in the presence of DYSP (Home) Mohsin Khan, PI Ramesh Bhurewar, Assistant SP Sabde. On the spot interviews at the site with neighbours, many of whom chose confidentiality.

Interviews with the owner of the site, Shankarrao Shivram Mangalikar, and his son. Interview with the Civil Surgeon, Dr DL Gaikwad. Interview with the Fire Brigade Officer, Shri V. Jogdand.

Visit to the Itwara Police Station, Rangargalli, Nanded. Meeting with IG Dr Suryaprakash Gupta along with SP Fatehsingh Patil, DYSP Abdul Razzak and DYSP (Rural) Sunita Salunke.

Context and background

The blasts occurred on April 6, 2006, in the house of Laxman Rajkondwar, an RSS-affiliated individual, situated in Nanded, Maharashtra. The explosion resulted in the immediate death of two individuals, identified as Himanshu Panse and Naresh Rajkondwar, and left four others severely injured. Initial police reports attributed the incident to an accidental ignition of firecrackers, allegedly stored in the premises for business purposes. However, further investigations by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and subsequently by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pointed towards a deliberate attempt to manufacture explosives, purportedly with the intent to carry out attacks on religious sites belonging to the Muslim community. Evidence recovered from the site included improvised explosive devices (IEDs), live cartridges, and documents associated with Hindu-extremist organizations like the RSS and Bajrang Dal. The focus of the case, however, gradually shifted due to procedural delays, inconsistencies in the investigative process, and varying judicial interpretations, raising questions about the impartiality and rigor of the investigative and judicial proceedings.

Observations from the citizen’s fact-finding report

Allegations of bias: The initial First Information Report (FIR) filed by the local police labelled the incident as an accidental firecracker explosion (referenced on page 4 of the fact-finding report), ignoring significant evidence at the scene. This characterisation reveals a potential overlooking of primary evidence, as it failed to account for preliminary findings that pointed to bomb-making activities, including the discovery of pipe bombs and splinters embedded in the victims’ bodies (detailed on page 6). The police’s approach raised concerns about a preconceived narrative aimed at protecting certain groups with a powerful presence in society while prematurely ruling out the possibility of deliberate acts of terror.

• Evidence found:
  • Bomb materials: The discovery of pipe bombs, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and 10 live cartridges (as highlighted on pages 4-6 of the fact-finding report) clearly indicated deliberate preparation of explosives. These materials, found in various stages of assembly, underscored the existence of an operational bomb-making site, where explosives were being prepared with apparent intent for large-scale communal violence.
  • Organisational links: Documents recovered from the site included maps, blueprints, and literature associated with extremist Hindu organizations, including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bajrang Dal (as detailed on pages 5-7 of the fact-finding report). These documents pointed to a coordinated effort to create communal discord, highlighting a systematic approach toward inciting violence and disrupting social harmony.
  • Training records: Several of the accused were revealed to have undergone structured training in bomb-making, arms handling, and guerrilla tactics (as detailed on pages 6-8 of the fact-finding report). Training sessions reportedly occurred at institutions like the Bhonsala Military School in Nagpur, which has been linked to extremist activities in the past. These sessions included live demonstrations on manufacturing explosive devices and handling IEDs, underscoring the organized and premeditated nature of the activities.
  • Camouflaging tactics: The accused employed deliberate tactics to mislead investigators and the public, (as highlighted on pages 7-8 of the fact-finding report). Recovered items included artificial beards, moustaches, and other disguises, which were intended to impersonate Muslim individuals. These materials, coupled with plans and written strategies, revealed a concerted effort to frame Muslim groups for the planned attacks. The recovered evidence also suggested attempts to simulate typical markers of Muslim attire and behaviour, furthering the narrative of extremist involvement from the Muslim community. This orchestrated plan underscored the accused’s intent to sow communal discord while shielding their own affiliations. 

• Intent and targeting:
  • Evidence pointed to a clear intent to target Muslim places of worship, particularly mosques, as part of a broader strategy to foment communal violence. This assertion is supported by detailed maps and reconnaissance reports found during the investigation, as noted on pages 9-11 of the fact-finding report. These materials revealed meticulous planning, including sketches of mosque layouts and identified weak spots for maximizing explosive impact, indicating an intent to cause severe disruption and communal tension.
• Criticism of investigative agencies:
  • ATS and CBI conduct: Both the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were criticised for failing to rigorously follow up on leads. Despite early indications of a well-coordinated extremist network, the investigation seemed to deliberately avoid exploring deeper institutional links and sources of funding.
  • Dilution of charges: Public outrage followed the decision to dilute charges against several principal accused individuals, casting doubt on the impartiality of the investigative process.
  • Institutional gaps: The investigating agencies failed to examine key elements such as the role of training centres, ideological indoctrination, and the logistical support behind the conspiracy. The report flagged these omissions as deliberate efforts to downplay the organized nature of the activities.
• Public reactions: The fact-finding report noted widespread criticism from secular organisations and civil society groups, who accused the agencies of systemic bias and shielding perpetrators affiliated with Hindu extremist organisations. This eroded public trust and highlighted the need for accountability and transparency in handling such sensitive cases.

These findings emphasise the critical importance of impartial investigations, robust evidence-gathering processes, and institutional accountability to ensure justice in cases involving communal violence and terrorism.

The report may read here:

4. Key findings from the judgment

• Prosecution’s case:
  • The accused were charged under IPC Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety), 286 (negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances), and 120B (criminal conspiracy); UAPA Sections 18 and 23 (punishments for conspiracy and aiding unlawful activities); and Explosive Substances Act Sections 4(b) and 5 (making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances).
  • The prosecution argued that the accused conspired to manufacture bombs with the intent to commit acts of terrorism and disrupt communal harmony. Evidence of bomb-making materials, extremist literature, and records of targeted reconnaissance were presented to substantiate the charges.

• Court’s observations:
  • The court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide a direct and reliable nexus between the accused and the intent to commit terrorist acts. While materials such as explosives and extremist documents were recovered, the evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate their connection to specific individuals or a larger conspiracy. The judgment underscored that possession alone, without corroborative intent or action, could not lead to conviction.
  • Forensic evidence deficiencies: Forensic reports failed to conclusively link the recovered materials to the alleged plans for mosque bombings. Splinters and explosive residues recovered at the site could not be attributed to the accused without doubt. Furthermore, mishandling of evidence by investigators was documented, further reducing its reliability.

There is no forensic report about the said articles and there is nothing on record to connect the above articles recovered by this witness with the alleged offences. Para 42 of the judgment

• Witness testimonies and inconsistencies: Key testimonies from investigating officers, forensic experts, and local witnesses were inconsistent. Some witnesses contradicted earlier statements regarding the discovery and handling of explosive devices. The absence of independent corroboration weakened the prosecution’s narrative.

In regard to the rival contentions noted above, it shall be profitable to mention observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Singh Vs. State [1978 (4) SCC 161] which read as underground –‘if a case has some flaws, the same has to be considered too inevitable because human beings are prone to err, proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes, contradictions and omissions are bound to occur in any case for trial but those cannot disturb or shake or challenge the basic fabric or the core of the case. From the above established position of law, minor aberrations and contradictions cannot harm otherwise believable prosecution case so long as the same does not occasion failure of justice by striking at the root of the case’. Para 67 of the judgment

• Procedural lapses: The court noted significant investigative flaws that compromised the case. Unprotected crime scenes allowed for potential contamination of evidence, raising doubts about the reliability of materials presented during the trial. The chain of custody for key evidence, such as recovered explosive devices and documents, was improperly maintained, with gaps in documentation and unexplained delays. Furthermore, critical forensic samples were either not preserved adequately or lacked proper analysis, diminishing their evidentiary value. Delays in recording witness statements further weakened the prosecution’s case, as memories faded and inconsistencies arose. These procedural deficiencies were highlighted as major contributors to the inability to establish a strong and credible case against the accused.

Rejection of witness intervention:

The application filed by Yeshwant Shinde, a former RSS pracharak, to testify as a witness was dismissed by the court. Shinde’s claims, which included receiving arms training and knowledge of extremist activities linked to the present accused, were deemed inadmissible on procedural grounds. The court ruled that his testimony lacked direct relevance to the charges under scrutiny, thereby excluding potentially crucial evidence from consideration.

To make the record clear, it is mentioned that the matter was stayed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order in Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 57/2012. However the said revision application came to be disposed off and the stay was vacated. Thereafter, on 29.08.2022 one person namely Yahswant Shinde filed an application (Exh.431) to array him as witness in the matter. The said application came to be dismissed on 17.01.2023 Paragraph 3 of the judgment

The judgment may be read here.

5. Comparative analysis

The Citizen’s fact-finding report) highlighted the presence of critical evidence such as pipe bombs, cartridges, and extremist literature. However, the judgment noted significant gaps in linking these materials conclusively to the accused. For example, forensic reports on explosive residues and splinters failed to connect them directly to the alleged plans for communal violence

This report also emphasised the discovery of documents suggesting organisational affiliations and planned targeting of religious sites. In contrast, the court dismissed these as insufficient, citing the lack of evidence to prove intent or actionable steps taken by the accused.

The judgment adhered to strict procedural and legal standards for evaluating evidence, emphasising the need for conclusive forensic proof and direct witness testimonies. This contrasts with the fact-finding report’s broader focus on circumstantial and contextual evidence. The court dismissed materials such as maps and organizational links as speculative in the absence of demonstrable intent or action by the accused.

The initial investigative findings by ATS pointed toward a deliberate attempt at bomb-making with religious targets. However, the subsequent dilution of charges by the CBI and reliance on procedural gaps in court altered the narrative, reducing the focus on organisational links and intent highlighted in the Citizen’s fact-finding report.

This comparative analysis underscores the differing priorities of the fact-finding report and the judicial process. While the report sought to establish a broader socio-political context and intent, the court adhered to stricter evidentiary and procedural standards, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

(The legal research team of the organisation consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related:

ARCHIVES: Hindutva Terror – The terror trail from Nanded to Malegaon and beyond

Nanded accused indict themselves

2007 – Nanded, Maharashtra: Preliminary Report Bomb Explosions

The post Judicial acquittal vs. Citizen’s Fact-finding: A critical look appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Undermining the freedom struggle

Bhagwat’s assertion undermines the monumental significance of August 15, 1947, as the day marking India’s liberation from colonial rule. The sacrifices of figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhagat Singh, and numerous unsung heroes are side-lined in favour of an ideological claim. Rahul Gandhi denounced the remark as “insulting to freedom fighters,” while Jairam Ramesh characterised it as “anti-national” and reflective of an agenda to rewrite history. Leaders like Tejashwi Yadav noted that this narrative belittles the immense sacrifices made by the freedom fighters under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership, disregarding their unparalleled contributions. Revanth Reddy, echoing these concerns, demanded that Prime Minister Modi clarify his position on Bhagwat’s remarks, questioning whether the government stands by the freedom fighters or supports this ideological stance.

Historical revisionism and its dangers

Shashi Tharoor warned against conflating India’s independence with ideological or religious milestones. He emphasized that independence was achieved through the collective sacrifices of patriots who endured British oppression, including incarceration and execution. Tharoor cautioned that attempts to redefine this historical truth risk diminishing its universal and inclusive nature. Digvijaya Singh echoed these concerns, demanding an apology from Bhagwat and criticizing the divisive undertones of the statement.

Assault on constitutional values

The remarks challenge the principles enshrined in India’s Constitution, adopted on January 26, 1950. By linking independence to a religious event, Bhagwat’s comments contradict the secular and pluralistic ethos envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Jairam Ramesh argued that such rhetoric undermines the democratic foundation of the Republic, disrespecting the Constitution’s commitment to equality and unity.

Political and social implications

The political backlash to Bhagwat’s statement has been unequivocal. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee labelled the remarks “anti-national” and “dangerous,” highlighting their potential to distort history and disrupt social harmony. The National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), led by Varun Choudhary, called for stringent action against the RSS, asserting that Bhagwat’s rhetoric threatened the nation’s unity and integrity. Shashi Tharoor pointed out that linking independence to religious milestones risks alienating minority communities and rewriting India’s collective historical achievements. Sachin Pilot also voiced strong opposition, condemning the remark as an affront to the sacrifices of countless freedom fighters. He criticized the government for weakening constitutional institutions and fostering an environment where such divisive statements are normalised.

Divisive ideology and historical context

Critics like Tejashwi Yadav and Digvijaya Singh underscored the RSS’s historical non-participation in the freedom movement. They argued that such statements attempt to appropriate the legacy of the independence struggle while marginalizing diverse contributions. Farooq Abdullah’s response emphasised the collective effort and sacrifices of all communities, warning against narratives that could deepen communal divides. This sentiment was echoed by Sachin Pilot, who criticized the remark for diminishing the inclusive struggle that defined India’s fight for freedom.

Public sentiment and wider repercussions

The broader public and political reaction to Bhagwat’s statement reflects its polarizing nature. Leaders across party lines, including KC Venugopal and Mallikarjun Kharge, have condemned the remarks as an affront to the sacrifices of martyrs and freedom fighters. Organizations like the Congress and NSUI have staged protests, with demands ranging from an apology to a ban on the RSS. This widespread opposition underscores the importance of safeguarding India’s historical narrative from ideological distortions.

Broader concerns on historical narratives

Bhagwat’s statement aligns with a broader trend of historical revisionism, where specific ideological milestones are promoted as central to India’s identity. Such narratives risk side-lining the secular and pluralistic contributions of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, and Jawaharlal Nehru. Jairam Ramesh noted that this trend undermines the Constitution and the values it represents. By celebrating the Ram Temple’s consecration as “true independence,” the RSS projects a narrow and exclusionary vision of Indian history.

Mohan Bhagwat’s remarks represent more than a historical misrepresentation; they pose a challenge to India’s pluralistic and democratic framework. The struggle for India’s independence was a collective effort transcending religious, regional, and ideological boundaries. Attempts to rewrite this narrative for political or ideological purposes must be actively challenged to preserve the integrity of India’s democratic and constitutional ideals. Moving forward, reaffirming the values of unity, secularism, and inclusivity is essential to maintaining the spirit of the freedom struggle and the Republic it helped establish.

Related:

Riddles of Ayodhya Ram Temple: Consecration of Bhagwan Ram’s idol, but which one?

As Ram Temple inaugurated in UP, reports arrive of communal incidents from five states

Only Hindutva can unify India, says Bhagwat

The post Bhagwat’s remarks spark national unity debate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As has been reported by the News Minute, it has been provided in the FIR filed by the women wrestlers that the complainant had met the Prime Minister in the year 2021 and informed him about the sexual harassment. She has further claimed that Narendra Modi had assured her that her “grievances” will be looked into by the Sports Ministry.

According to the FIR, the wrestler said, “I informed the Prime Minister about the repeated sexual, emotional, psychological, and physical trauma that was meted out to me and other female wrestlers by accused no. 1 [Brij Bhushan] in conspiracy with his close aides, to which the Prime Minister reassured me that such grievances will be looked into by the Sports Ministry and I will get a call from the Sports Ministry shortly.”

The complainant said that after her meeting with the PM, a show cause notice issued to her earlier was withdrawn, and Brij Bhushan and aides stopped exerting pressure on her for sometime, as was reported by the News Minute. However, she adds that the mental harassment resumed after a short interval. It is crucial to note here that there has been no mention made here that any attempt was made by the PM to remove Singh from his position of power even after knowing about the abuse. It is also pertinent to note that the Prime Minister has not yet issued anystatement regarding the sexual harassment allegations against Brij Bhushan, and had rather invited the accused to the inauguration ceremony of the new parliament building.

PM Modi once famously said, “Progress of women always gives strength to the empowerment of the nation,” and yet he falls truly short on implementing his words and protecting the women facing sexual harassment at the hands of a predator from his own party.

Even after all this, many other dramatic statements have been made by Singh, who has been time and again denying the allegations against him, calling it a political conspiracy. And now, the details of the key allegations put on him in the two official complaints filed with New Delhi’s Connaught Place police station on April 28 have come out, and they are disturbing and traumatising to say the least.

It is pertinent to note that both the FIRs cite IPC Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking) and 34 (common intention) that carry a jail term of one to three years. The first FIR covers the allegations of six adult wrestlers and also names WFI secretary Vinod Tomar. The second FIR is based on the complaint of a minor’s father and also invokes Section 10 of the POCSO Act which entails five to seven years of imprisonment.

The incidents mentioned allegedly took place in India and overseas from 2012 to 2022.

The seven women have put on record multiple incidents of sexual harassment and misconduct that included groping, inappropriate touching and physical contact — during tournaments, at warm-ups and even in the WFI office. At least two instances of demanding “sexual favours” in lieu of professional assistance along with more than 10 episodes of inappropriate touching, molestation that includes running hands over breasts, touching the navel have been made public in a report by the Indian Express. Several instances of intimidation including stalking and a shared sense of fear and trauma also form the key allegations in two FIRs filed.

• “Since the accused (Singh) was always on the lookout to engage in inappropriate talk/gestures…girls, including myself, collectively agreed to not go alone for breakfast, lunch or dinner”.

Wrestler 5

• “While I was standing in the last row (for team photograph)… the accused (Singh) came and stood alongside me. I suddenly felt a hand on my buttock. I was stunned by the actions of the accused (Singh) while they were highly indecent and objectionable and without my consent… when I tried moving away, I was forcibly held by my shoulder.”

Wrestler 6

• “On the pretext of getting a picture clicked with me, he pulled me towards him by my shoulder… to protect myself, I tried moving away from the accused (Singh)… Since I was not comfortable with the behaviour of the accused of forcing me, I, in order to escape, (his) clutches, repeatedly resisted his attempts and tried to push him away to which he (threatened): “Zyada smart bann rahi hai kya…aage koi competition nahi khelne kya tune?” (Acting too smart? You don’t want to be considered for tournaments in the future?)

(The above mentioned details of the FIR are based on the copy of the Indian Express)

 FIR 2- Allegations put forth by the minor wrestler

The minor’s complaint, filed by her father, alleges that his daughter was “completely disturbed and cannot be at peace anymore …sexual harassment by the accused (Singh) continues to haunt her”. The father also alleged that Brij Bhushanforcefully pulled his daughter towards him and molested her. Brij Bhushan then allegedly told her: “Tu merko support kar, mei terko support karunga, mere saath touch mein rehna” (If you support me, I will support you. Be in touch with me).

As per the News Minute, the father of the minor complainant also mentions that when his daughter refused Brij Bhushan’s advances, he allegedly threatened to stifle her chances at the upcoming trials for the Asian Championship, which he later did by clubbing her in the same category as other strong contestants at the trials, against the general practice of giving preference to the medal holder in the national championship. 

The complainant further details how Brij Bhushan called his daughter to his room and tried to initiate “forceful physical contact”, from where she ran, shell-shocked.

The minor athlete alleged that Singh held her tight for a photo. She mentioned that he also pressed her shoulder and purposefully touched her inappropriately. She added that she explicitly told him not to stalk her and that she was not interested in having any physical relationship with him.

• “Holding her tightly, pretending to get a picture clicked, the accused (Singh) squeezed her towards himself, pressed hard on her shoulder and then deliberately…brushed his hands against her breasts”.

• “She clearly told the accused (Singh) she had already told him that she was not interested in having any sort of physical relationship and that he should stop stalking her…”

Based on this complaint, Brij Bhushan has been charged under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The said Section 10 of the POCSO Act would lead to five to seven years of imprisonment. The minor athlete stated that the harassment took place between 2012 and 2022 in both India and abroad. Following this FIR, Brij Bhushanhad claimed that the POCSO Act is being misused and said he wants it amended.

A decade long pattern of abuse

These women have endured years of trauma, of living in fear and having their autonomy and dignity snatched away, of having no respite from the preying hands of men in power. From being sexually assaulted during training to having a man slide his hand inside their t-shirt under the guise of “checking her breath” to having their body touched without their consent while posing for a photograph, the complainants’ accounts demonstrate the level of authority Singh purportedly possessed and exercised in the federation, establishing this pattern to his sexual harassment while enjoying impunity. It is evident from the narratives presented above that time and again Singh used his clout to prey on the survivors, touching them on various pretexts, and isolating them whenever possible to elicit sexual favours. Today, these women are fighting on their behalf, as well as on the behalf of those women who are forced into silence about their stories, against a man who wields such power that even the Prime Minister is silent. From what should have been an act of justice, putting a guilty man behind bars, has become a struggle in which they are being manhandled, dragged, abused, and booked for disrupting the law and order of India!

Who and what are these women battling? On the face of it, they are fighting against a man guilty of committing non-consensual acts on their bodies. But they are also battling an invisible and rigid structure of impunity and abuse of power where a string of powerful men are standing behind one guilty man. 

Related:

Battling the Indian sports industry: the cries for justice by women

Protests and Mahapanchayats announced in support of the protesting wrestlers, 5 days given till medals are immersed in Ganga River

Wrestler Protest: Law student moves NHRC, files complaint over the detention & brutal police action against protesting wrestlers

From deathly silence to violence: The journey of wrestlers struggling for justice

Protests erupt at Delhi police violent crackdown on Women Wrestlers, FIR, and nationwide outrage

Attempt to Drown out Wrestlers’ Protest with Song and Dance About ‘Temple of Democracy’

When Will Society Hold Men Accountable for Patriarchy

Farmers announce nationwide agitation in support of #WomenChampionWrestlers

Protesting wrestlers manhandled by drunk Delhi police officer at night, supporters and journalists detained

Independent mechanisms on sexual harassment at workplace imperative, NWMI stands in solidarity with women wrestlers

WFI leadership accused of sexual harassment by Indian women wrestlers, absence of redressal mechanisms the focus

The post FIRs suggest wrestlers had informed PM about their repeated sexual trauma in 2021 appeared first on SabrangIndia.