Malegaon blast verdict: Full case explained, Identities of 7 Key accused and charges detailed

On September 29, 2008, a bomb went off close near Bhikku Chowk mosque in Malegaon, Maharashtra, amid the fasting month of Ramzan. The tragic strike claimed the lives of six Muslim worshippers and injured nearly a hundred others.

The Maharashtra ATS initially led the investigation, concluding that an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) affixed to a motorcycle allegedly owned by Pragya Singh Thakur had been planted to incite communal tensions. The agency also linked the blast to the right-wing group Abhinav Bharat, alleging that Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Maj Ramesh Upadhyay, and others conspired to carry out the attack.

From the ATS probe emerged seven main accused: Pragya Singh Thakur (ex-BJP MP), Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Major (Retd) Ramesh Shivaji Upadhyay, Ajay Eknath Rahirkar, Sameer Sharad Kulkarni, Sudhakar Omkarnath Chaturvedi, and Sudharkar Dhar Dwivedi (Swami Amrutanand Devtirth). These individuals were charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code including murder and criminal conspiracy, extensive provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and other statutes such as the Arms Act and Explosives Act.

In court, the prosecution’s key allegation against Pragya Singh Thakur was that her motorcycle served as the bomb carrier. Purohit was accused of organising and supplying the embedded RDX explosives. The prosecution argued that the accused met in places like Bhopal in April 2008 to finalize the conspiracy. However, these claims rested heavily on ATS-produced witness statements and the confessions of Swami Aseemanand, many of which were later disbelieved or unsupported by physical evidence. The NIA filing further highlighted gaps in the ATS inquiry and ruled out sections under Maharashtra’s organized crime law (MCOCA) for some accused.

Over nearly 17 years of legal proceedings stretching across five judges, two investigative agencies and testimony from 323 prosecution witnesses and eight defense witnesses the trial repeatedly encountered delays, internal inconsistencies and procedural hurdles. Frequent judge transfers and huge records reportedly disturbed the speed of justice.

When the special NIA court in Mumbai delivered its verdict, Judge A.K. Lahoti ruled that despite strong suspicion, the prosecution had failed to secure conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The court acknowledged the blast yet found no indisputable proof that the accused were directly responsible, that the bomb was placed on the motorcycle, or that Purohit had stored or assembled explosives at his residence. It also noted that forensic samples were contaminated, spot examinations lacked fingerprint or data collection, and sanction orders under UAPA were legally defective and hence misleading.

The court emphatically stated that terrorism has no religion and legal justice cannot proceed on suspicion or moral perception alone. Consequently, all seven accused were acquitted of charges under IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, and other sections. In its order, it mandated compensation of ₹2 lakh for families of the deceased and ₹50,000 for each person injured, to be provided by the Maharashtra government. All bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.

On the other hand, Lt Col Purohit, who spent nearly nine years in custody, expressed gratitude to the court, stating that his conviction had never wavered even in adversity. Pragya Thakur, heralding the verdict as a win for her ideological camp, called it a forgiveness of the many years she said she underwent defamation and political targeting.

Voices representing the victims have signaled intent to challenge the acquittals in the High Court. Asaduddin Owaisi criticized the investigation as deliberately poor and highlighted the victims’ alleged targeting for their religion. Some victims’ legal representatives argued that justice had been delayed and denied.

Also Read:  2008 Malegaon blast case: NIA Court acquits Pragya Thakur, Lt Col Purohit and other accused