August 2, 2025

Seventeen years post a devastating blast in Malegaon, Maharashtra, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai acquitted all seven defendants involved in the 2008 incident. The court deemed the evidence provided by the prosecution as inconclusive, unreliable, and legally inadmissible, resulting in a strong criticism against the NIA’s investigative practices. On July 31, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti explained in a comprehensive 1,036-page judgment that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically dismissing claims that the right-wing group Abhinav Bharat was responsible for the terror incident. The ruling includes a thorough examination of the 323 witnesses over years of proceedings, conducted primarily by three agencies: the Local Crime Branch, Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), and the NIA. As per the court, the testimonies were marked by notable inconsistencies and contradictions, which significantly impaired the credibility of the charges against the accused, namely Pragyasingh Chandrapalsingh Thakur, Major Ramesh Shivji Upadhyaya, and others. The court highlighted that accusations against the accused failed to meet the essential standards of criminal jurisprudence: the prosecution is obligated to establish guilt based on credible, legally admissible evidence, not mere suspicion. Though the evidence raised serious doubts regarding the accused's involvement, the judge stressed that suspicion alone could not justify a conviction. The judge noted the emotional trauma suffered by the victims' families but reiterated that legal standards must prevail. Critical discussions in the judgment surrounded witness testimonies, particularly those recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which the court deemed insufficient as substantive evidence without the witnesses affirming their claims in court. Many witnesses expressed that their statements had resulted from coercion by ATS officials, raising red flags about the integrity of the investigative process. The judgment mandated the cancellation of bail bonds for the acquitted and ordered a new investigation against the absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. Furthermore, it addressed victims by stipulating compensation under government schemes: ₹200,000 for deceased family members and ₹50,000 for the injured. The Malegaon blast occurred during Ramadan in 2008, devastating a crowded area and resulting in six fatalities and injuries to over 100 individuals. The court ruling shines a light on the complexities of terrorism investigations in India, the responsibilities of investigative bodies, and the need for integrity in pursuing justice without yielding to public pressure. This acquittal forces us to reassess law enforcement and judicial processes involved in handling terrorism cases. The court affirmed that serious offences require thorough investigative work reflecting legal and ethical standards. With the NIA and ATS under scrutiny for their prior conduct, the future of the ongoing investigation remains uncertain, raising further questions about the reliability of evidence collected during these sensitive cases. It highlights the need for reform in investigative procedures and utmost diligence in maintaining the rule of law in the face of complex socio-political issues. While the verdict may be viewed as a setback for victims, it also opens a dialogue on the procedural integrity within law enforcement and how its failings can impact justice for those afflicted by such heinous acts. It urges all stakeholders in the legal system to reflect upon their duties to ensure that justice is both served and perceived to be served in society, especially in high-profile cases that attract public and media attention. The ramifications of this judgment will likely resonate through the judicial system, emphasizing the delicate balance between societal concerns and the foundational principles of justice.

Read More at Thehindu →

Tags: Malegaon blast, Nia, Acquittal, Terror case, Indian judiciary,