The Bombay High Court has declared the 2006 Malegaon blasts case to be at a “dead end,” discharging four accused individuals and sharply criticizing the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for what it described as a complete disregard for evidence previously gathered by other investigative bodies. The court’s pronouncement leaves the fundamental question of who was responsible for the explosions that claimed 31 lives and injured 312 others unanswered, casting a long shadow over the protracted legal proceedings.
The four individuals who were discharged by the High Court are Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, Manohar Ram Singh Narwaria, and Lokesh Sharma. Their discharge stems from the court’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to warrant their trial for the bombings. These individuals had been charged under serious sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those pertaining to murder and criminal conspiracy, as well as the stringent Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act (UAPA), a powerful anti-terror legislation. The High Court’s decision also quashed a special court order from September 2025 that had framed charges against these four, with the bench noting that the special judge had not adequately applied their mind to the available material.
The devastating incidents occurred on September 8, 2006, when four bombs detonated in Malegaon, a town in Maharashtra’s Nashik district. The explosions took place shortly after Friday prayers, with three bombs detonating within the premises of Hamidia Masjid and Bada Kabrastan, and a fourth in Mushawarat Chowk. The blasts resulted in the deaths of 31 people and left 312 others injured, creating a significant security and humanitarian crisis.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak, in their judgment, highlighted the NIA’s alleged failure to consider the comprehensive investigation and chargesheet filed by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). The ATS’s initial probe, as per the court, provided a detailed account of the alleged planning by nine Muslim men who were apprehended early in the investigation. Information reaching TahirRihat.com suggests that the case has been marked by significant shifts in investigative focus, with initial agencies pointing towards Muslim perpetrators, while the NIA, which later took over the investigation, posited that right-wing extremists were behind the attacks.
The High Court’s order, made public on Thursday, stated, “The case seems to have reached a dead end. The diagonally opposite stories in the chargesheet filed by the ATS and the NIA lead nowhere.” The court further elaborated that the ATS had collected incriminating evidence from the blast sites, including forensic evidence that indicated the presence of RDX in soil samples from the occurrence site and a godown belonging to one of the initial nine accused. The court noted that “Both the samples were found to be the same.” The High Court emphasized that for framing charges in grave offenses like murder, which can carry the death penalty, a trial court must exercise extreme caution to ensure there is substantial material to proceed against the accused.
The bench observed that the special judge had overlooked critical contradictions and inherent improbabilities within the prosecution’s narrative as presented by the NIA. The court questioned the rationale behind the trial court’s apparent disregard for evidence collected by the ATS and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). “The things as stand today give two contradictory versions of the incident and both stories as floated by the ATS and NIA cannot be reconciled by any stretch of imagination,” the High Court stated. The court asserted that evidence gathered by the two previous investigating agencies had not been invalidated and therefore had to be considered by the special court. The judgment clarified that a trial court possesses the authority to examine and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of determining if a prima facie case has been established against an accused.
The High Court pointed out that the prosecution’s case against the four discharged accused rested solely on circumstantial evidence. No eyewitnesses have come forward to testify that they saw the accused involved in the bomb blasts. The NIA’s case, according to the court, relied heavily on confessional statements from the accused, which had since been retracted, and purported statements made in other unrelated cases. The court expressed bewilderment as to why the NIA had not pursued the collection of fresh evidence. It was noted that the NIA, following its investigation, had presented an entirely new narrative based on the statement of Swami Aseemanand, which was later retracted. The NIA had also indicated that the investigation was ongoing and that further evidence was being collected, requesting the special court to permit continued investigation.
The materials presented by the NIA to suggest that the appellants had purchased bicycles used in the crime were characterized as hearsay evidence by the court. In its chargesheet concerning the 2006 case, the NIA had also named four individuals as wanted accused, two of whom were later identified as wanted in the September 2008 Malegaon blast case. Notably, former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, then Lt Col Prasad Purohit, and five others were arrested and faced trial for their alleged involvement in the 2006 bombings. However, in July of the previous year, a special court acquitted all seven of these accused due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The NIA’s chargesheet in the 2006 case had referenced a statement by Swami Aseemanand, which suggested that the Malegaon blasts were carried out by associates of the late right-wing activist Sunil Joshi. Aseemanand subsequently retracted his statement.
Tahir Rihat (also known as Tahir Bilal) is an independent journalist, activist, and digital media professional from the Chenab Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, India. He is best known for his work as the Online Editor at The Chenab Times.