July 31, 2025

In a landmark judgment delivered on Thursday, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. This included notable personalities like former Bharatiya Janata Party MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and lieutenant colonel Prasad Purohit. The court expressed its decision rooted in the absence of direct evidence against the accused and procedural lapses related to the invocation of terrorism charges against them. This verdict has been pending for almost 17 years since the tragic blast occurred in Malegaon, Maharashtra, resulting in the deaths of six individuals and injuring many others. The NIA court articulated a significant observation stating, "Terrorism has no religion because no religion can advocate violence. The court cannot convict anyone merely on perception and moral evidence; there has to be cogent evidence.” This statement highlights the critical standard that the legal system must maintain when handling cases related to terrorism. In its ruling, the court pointed out that the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in this instance was flawed. It mentioned that the required sanction for prosecution was not obtained following legal procedures. Hence, the UAPA could not be enforced in this case, as indicated by the court, which remarked, "The sanction orders of the UAPA in the case are defective.” This reflects the importance of adhering to legal protocols, especially in cases as severe as those related to terrorism. Despite acknowledging that a bomb blast had occurred, the court remarked that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that the motorcycle discovered at the scene was conclusively linked to the explosive device. The court's statement emphasized, "Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon but failed to prove that a bomb was placed in that motorcycle.” This assertion highlights the necessity for definitive evidence in securing a conviction. The court's examination of evidence presented during the trial revealed inconsistencies. For instance, it concluded that the number of injured individuals was misrepresented, noting that there were 95 injured, not 101, as claimed, and mentioned manipulations in some medical certificates. These inconsistencies undermined the prosecution’s case and contributed significantly to the court's decision. The role of the Hindutva group Abhinav Bharat was also scrutinized during the proceedings. However, the court found no substantial evidence to back the prosecution’s claims that members of the organization were involved in the terror act. It noted, "Abhinav Bharat organization was used as a common reference by the prosecution. There is no evidence that the money of Abhinav Bharat was used for terror activities.” Apart from acquitting the accused, the court ordered compensation for the victims, directing that families of the six deceased individuals receive ₹2 lakh each. Meanwhile, those who were injured are to be compensated with ₹50,000, a move directed towards addressing the suffering caused by the incident. The decision has sparked divergent reactions across the political spectrum, with some viewing it as a triumph of legal principles, while others regard it as a failure to deliver justice to the victims. For years, the Malegaon blast case remained a symbol of complex communal tensions and a test case for anti-terror legislation in India. Critics of the judicial process have often raised concerns regarding the efficacy and application of laws such as the UAPA, arguing that procedural lapses can lead to a miscarriage of justice. This ruling not only affects the individuals acquitted but also sets a precedent in how terrorism-related cases might be handled in the future, emphasizing the intertwining relationship between evidence and justice in the Indian legal landscape.

Read More at Hindustantimes →

Tags: Malegaon blast, Nia court, Sadhvi pragya singh thakur, Prasad purohit, Uapa,