On July 31, 2025, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The accused included:
- Pragya Singh Thakur, BJP leader and former MP, and self-styled god-woman
- Lt Col Prasad Purohit, a serving Army intelligence officer at the time of arrest
- Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay
- Sameer Kulkarni
- Sudhakar Chaturvedi
- Ajay Rahirkar
- Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi alias Dayanand Pandey
The special court, presided over by Judge A.K. Lahoti, stated that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused “deserved the benefit of doubt”.
The Malegaon Blast: What happened?
On September 29, 2008, a powerful explosion ripped through Bhikku Chowk, a Muslim-dominated commercial area in Malegaon, Maharashtra. The bomb, fitted on an LML Freedom motorcycle bearing a fake number plate, killed six persons and injured over 100.
Initial investigations by the Maharashtra ATS, led by the late Hemant Karkare, suggested the use of RDX and ammonium nitrate. The ATS soon traced the motorcycle to Pragya Singh Thakur, who initially denied ownership.
The conspiracy, as detailed in the ATS’s 4,500-page chargesheet, involved:
- Planning meetings in Raigad Fort, Deolali, Pune, Bhopal, Indore, Faridabad, Kolkata, and Nashik
- Procurement of explosives by Lt Col Purohit from army stocks during his J&K posting
- Bomb assembly at Sudhakar Chaturvedi’s house in Deolali, whose keys were stored at the Military Intelligence office
- A radical plan to establish a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation) through Abhinav Bharat, a group allegedly floated by Purohit and others.
How the case collapsed
The Malegaon 2008 blast case was initially investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) under the leadership of the late Hemant Karkare. In January 2009, the ATS filed its primary charge sheet, naming 12 accused, including Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, both of whom had been arrested months after the explosion.
In 2011, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which eventually filed a supplementary charge sheet on May 13, 2016.
The ATS investigation had alleged that Thakur, Purohit (who was identified as the founder of Abhinav Bharat, a radical right-wing group), and others were part of a larger conspiracy aimed at taking “revenge” and instilling fear among the Muslim community. According to the ATS, the accused participated in a series of conspiracy meetings held in cities including Bhopal and Indore. It further claimed that the motorcycle used in the blast was registered in Thakur’s name, and that she had made it available for use in the attack.
In its 2009 charge sheet, the ATS invoked multiple provisions, including the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), against all the accused.
However, a significant shift occurred after the NIA took over. Between 2011 and 2016, the agency had initially opposed any relief sought by Thakur. But in a complete reversal, the NIA’s 2016 supplementary charge sheet dropped all charges against her. While it retained several allegations against the remaining accused, invoking sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Explosive Substances Act, the agency asserted that it found no credible evidence implicating Thakur. Instead, the NIA accused the ATS of coercing witnesses into giving statements against her and recommended dropping MCOCA charges against all 12 accused.
Notably, the supplementary charge sheet was filed without informing the designated Special Public Prosecutor, Avinash Rasal, raising questions about procedural transparency.
Despite the NIA’s exoneration of Thakur, the special NIA court refused to discharge her, stating that it could not overlook the incriminating material submitted earlier by the ATS.
Despite early investigative successes, the case gradually fell apart. The court’s verdict outlines technical and evidentiary failures, but the rot runs far deeper.
(Detailed copy of the ATS charge sheet may be read here.)
- Forensic failures and “contaminated” evidence
- No fingerprints or DNA were recovered from the blast site
- The bike’s chassis and engine numbers were destroyed, and could not be conclusively linked to Thakur
- The court ruled that forensic samples were contaminated, making them unreliable
- Discredited intercepts and defective sanctions
- Phone taps of the accused were ruled inadmissible due to lack of proper legal sanction
- The court held that two UAPA sanctions signed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were procedurally defective.
- MCOCA, initially invoked by the ATS for establishing an organised crime syndicate, was later dropped by the NIA in its 2016 charge sheet
Vanishing Evidence: Missing papers, missing justice
One of the darkest chapters in the case is the disappearance of key evidence:
- Confessional statements of at least 13 witnesses and two accused, recorded under CrPC 164 and MCOCA, went missing from court records by 2016, as per Mumbai Mirror
- These included accounts of meetings between Pragya Thakur and Ramji Kalsangra (an absconding accused) discussing the Malegaon blast plan.
- A special court eventually allowed the use of photocopies, over defence objections, after the originals remained untraceable despite court-to-court tracking
Compounding this, new statements recorded by the NIA in Delhi directly contradicted the earlier ones, which now lead to exonerating the accused
Witnesses Turn Hostile: 39 and counting
Of the 323 witnesses examined, at least 39 turned hostile, including serving Army officers and other key prosecution witnesses, as per The Hindu. Many of these had earlier confirmed:
- Attendance at planning meetings
- The ideological indoctrination of “Hindu Rashtra”
- Purohit’s and Thakur’s involvement in Abhinav Bharat
Yet under oath, they reversed their earlier testimonies.
Another 30 witnesses died before they could testify.
Critically, no prosecution for perjury was initiated, and the court did not question the pattern of defection.
Political winds and prosecutorial apathy
The prosecution’s attitude changed after 2014, a fact publicly confirmed by Rohini Salian, the initial special public prosecutor, according to Indian Express.
In 2015, Salian disclosed that she had been instructed by NIA officials to “go soft” on the accused. When she refused, she was side-lined and replaced. She recounted how:
“A senior NIA officer came and said there are instructions from higher-ups. Someone else will appear instead of you,” as reported by Indian Express.
Salian’s replacement, Avinash Rasal, led the rest of the trial. The NIA’s 2016 supplementary chargesheet notably weakened the ATS case, dropped MCOCA, and questioned the credibility .of the confessions obtained under ATS custody — often on the basis of alleged torture/
The accused claimed their confessions were coerced. The NIA appeared to agree — without formally prosecuting the ATS for custodial abuse.
Abhinav Bharat- forgotten conspiracy
The ATS had built a robust case that Abhinav Bharat was a radical Hindutva outfit plotting systemic violence.
- Meeting transcripts, many recorded by Swami Dayanand Pandey himself, showed elaborate plans for a parallel state structure with its own flag, constitution, and army, as per a report of SabrangIndia.
- The accused discussed revenge for Muslim acts of terror, equipping themselves to create a “Hindu Rashtra” by force.
- The Bhonsala Military School in Nashik — used for training cadres — was spared scrutiny
- Senior army officials who facilitated meetings or gave access to explosives were listed as witnesses, not accused
Despite this, the court held that the group’s structure could not be proved, and hence conspiracy could not be established.
A bigger network, never investigated
The Malegaon case was not an isolated act. It had alleged links to:
- Samjhauta Express blasts (2007)
- Ajmer Sharif Dargah blast (2007)
- Mecca Masjid blast in Hyderabad (2007)
- Nanded and Parbhani mosque blasts (2003–2006)
The ATS had initially argued for treating these as part of a larger Hindutva terror network, with shared ideology, funding, and personnel. This theory was quietly shelved when the NIA took over in 2011.
(Detailed report may be read here.)
What justice meant for the victims
Most of the Malegaon victims were poor Muslim daily wage workers. Their families waited 17 years for justice.
- No reparations have been announced for their suffering.
- No accountability has been fixed on investigative agencies for case mismanagement.
- No police officials have faced scrutiny for custodial torture or botched procedures
Meanwhile, the accused have moved on:
- Pragya Thakur was a sitting Member of Parliament.
- Lt Col Purohit was reinstated into the Army.
- Others have resumed public life, with some even receiving public felicitation by Hindu outfits, as reported by Sabrang India
Notably, through the judgement, the court said that families of all six victims of the blast will be given Rs 2 lakh each, and all injured victims will be given Rs 50,000 as compensation.
The real cost of acquittal
Judge Lahoti’s observation that “Terrorism has no religion as no religion advocates violence… Judgments cannot be based on morals and public perception” is legally sound. But this case was not just about legal thresholds.
It is about:
- Vanishing documents
- Reversed testimonies
- Political interference
- Institutional sabotage
- And a justice system that slowly but surely stopped caring
The acquittal may be final, but it is not exoneration. It is a legal closure of a political wound, not a factual resolution.
Conclusion: Not a verdict, but a warning
The Malegaon blast trial was never just about one bombing. It was about the integrity of our institutions, the non-negotiability of secularism, and the State’s duty to remain impartial in matters of terror.
The July 31, 2025 verdict might be a bookend to the case. But it is also an open question to the Indian republic: When evidence disappears, witnesses retreat, prosecutors fall silent, and ideology infiltrates investigation— can we still call it justice?
Related:
ARCHIVES: Hindutva Terror – The terror trail from Nanded to Malegaon and beyond
Criminal conspiracy – The ATS charge sheet in the Malegaon blast case
Malegaon blast case: Court rejects Pragya’s plea seeking exemption from appearing for trail
Malegaon Blast Accused Sadhvi Pragya may get Z-Security
PM Modi Defends Malegaon Blast Accused Sadhvi Pragya’s Candidature