KOCHI: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai on July 31, 2025 acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, citing lack of credible evidence to prove their involvement in the crime. The high profile case, which dragged on for 17 years, was under intense scrutiny as the accused included former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and ex-Army officer Lt Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit. This was also the case that made the term ‘Hindu terror’ go mainstream as the accused were all Hindus and the victims Muslims.
Over the years, the case saw several twists and turns with five presiding judges and more than 300 witnesses, of whom several turned hostile. In his detailed judgment, Special Judge A K Lahoti listed out several reasons to conclude that the prosecution failed to bring any 'cogent evidence' to prove the culpability of the accused.
The judge noted that there was not enough evidence to establish that the explosion originated from the bike that allegedly belonged to Pragya Thakur. Also, it could not be proven beyond doubt that the motorcycle was registered in the name of the BJP leader. Without substantial evidence, mere suspicion can’t lead to conviction, the court held.
The case
Around 9.30 pm on September 29, 2008, an explosion took place outside Shakeel Goods Transport Company, located at a crowded street between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk in Malegaon city in Maharashtra’s Nashik district, killing six persons and injuring 95 others. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which initially investigated the case, traced the blast to an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle, which it claimed was owned by Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur.
She was arrested on charges of terrorism. The ATS later arrested Army officer Lt Col Prasad Purohit for allegedly arranging the RDX used in the blast. In all, 14 people were arrested but only seven eventually stood trial in court. Two accused -- Ramchandra Gopalsingh Kalsangra and Sandeep Vishwas Dange – were reported absconding.
The ATS’s case was based on the premise that the blast was carried out by right-wing activists during the Ramazan and just before the festival of Navaratri, to create communal unrest. All the six victims — Sayyed Ajhar Sayyed Nisaar, Shaikh Mushtaq Shaikh Yusuf, Shaikh Rafique Shaikh Mustafa, Farheen alias Shagufta Shaikh Liyakat, Harun Shaha Mohammad Shaha, and Irfan Jiyaullah Khan — were killed as they were walking on the street after offering prayers at a nearby mosque. The ATS pinned the motive of the blast on retaliation — to avenge prior attacks on Hindus. And its probe focused on individuals linked to Hindu nationalist circles, especially the organisation Abhinav Bharat.
The probe
The ATS went on to arrest retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay and several others with ties to Abhinav Bharat — Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, and Sameer Kulkarni — accusing them of providing logistics and funding for extremist activities. The ATS filed its chargesheet in January 2009, invoking charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code, and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The ATS claimed the bombing was an Abhinav Bharat project and the group’s meetings and its network formed a core part of the prosecution's narrative. The ATS cited phone records, testimonials, and Purohit’s military background to push its case.
However, the probe was mired in controversy from the beginning. The defence team alleged coercion and physical torture to extract confessions. Detailed court submissions described severe maltreatment that included brutal beatings, isolation, threats to harm family members, and sleep deprivation, raising doubts about the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence.
Amid legal challenges and controversies, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the case in April 2011. By 2016, it had dropped MCOCA charges, terming ATS’s approach as flawed and inconsistent. NIA's findings diverged from the original ATS probe on crucial points, raising doubts over confessional statements and physical evidence.
The acquittal
The judgment points to the lack of any direct, definitive evidence linking any of the accused to the planning, execution, or logistics of the attack. The whole case was built on the premise that the bomb was planted on a motorcycle parked at the site and that it belonged to Pragya Thakur. However, the court held that there was no solid documentary evidence to prove the ownership of the bike bearing the fake registration number MH15P4572. The forensic analysis threw up three probable engine numbers but the two-wheeler manufacturer could not match any of the numbers with their records. It, however, provided another engine number that led to a vehicle owned by Pragya, bearing the registration number GJ-05-BR-1920.
In her defence, Pragya said that she had a bike in her name but it had been transferred to one Sunil Joshi in 2004 as she had taken sanyas and, therefore, renounced the material world. However, the ATS found that the bike was still in her name and that Joshi had been shot dead by unknown bike-borne killers in 2007.
The court noted that the chassis number of the bike was ‘wiped out’, making it difficult to establish the vehicle belonged to Pragya Thakur. More importantly, the court held that the prosecution could not establish that the explosive device was planted on the bike. So, it was possible the blast might have originated from something else other than the bike.
Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Purohit were cleared of the charge of conspiring with other accused. "As per prosecution, the alleged conspiracy was cooked in the various meetings held among the accused. But the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove those alleged meetings..." the judgment said.
The charge against Ltd Col Purohit was that he bought 60 kg of RDX from Kashmir, after completing his posting there. The RDX was stored “in the cupboard of his house,” the prosecution claimed. The court said the prosecution failed to establish that he sourced RDX from Kashmir or that he assembled the bomb.
The court also flagged forensic and procedural lapses, besides irregularities in the handling of the crime scene and chain of custody. Also, many witness statements were found to be inconsistent, coerced, or recanted during the trial.
"Almost all those witnesses, during the course of the evidence deposed that, they had not given their statements voluntarily, but their statements were taken as dictated under coercion by the officers of ATS. A number of witnesses further alleged that, they were subjected to torture, ill-treatment, and unlawful detention during the course of investigation," it said.
"Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent, reliable, and legally acceptable evidence. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions. Such discrepancies undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case and fall short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the judge said.
The court said it was aware of the agony the families of the victims will experience if a heinous crime goes unpunished. "However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion," it said, adding that the court of law is not supposed to proceed based on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter.
"It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden rests entirely upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, based on admissible and credible evidence. The more serious the offence, the higher standard of proof required for conviction. Admittedly, in the present case there is no reliable, cogent and acceptable evidence on record, as discussed supra, to warrant the conviction."
The court found crucial sanctions under UAPA were invalid, undermining the prosecution's terrorism charges. The prosecution also failed to submit sufficient material to link Abhinav Bharat’s ideological activities to the planning or execution of the Malegaon blast as charged.
The judge said strong suspicion alone is not legal proof and, in the absence of solid, corroborative evidence, all accused deserve the benefit of doubt.
Hindu terror angle
Congress leader P Chidambaram, then Union home minister, coined the term 'saffron terror' during a conference on August 25, 2010. "There has been a recent uncovered phenomenon of saffron terrorism that has been implicated in many bomb blasts in the past," he said, referring to the Malegaon blast. Chidambaram’s successor Sushil Kumar Shinde used this term in January 2013, saying 'saffron terror' is emanating from the RSS and BJP camps.
Touching upon religion, the NIA court said: "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.
The 7 who stood trial
Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur: Religious preacher and former BJP MP, accused of owning the motorcycle used in the blast
Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit: Serving officer in Directorate of Military Intelligence, Indian Army, accused of arranging explosives
Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay: Retired army major, accused of facilitating meetings and providing support to Abhinav Bharat
Ajay Rahirkar: Alleged treasurer of Abhinav Bharat, accused of fundraising for operations
Sudhakar Chaturvedi: Allegedly involved in operational planning and logistics
Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi: Religious preacher, accused of propagating extremist ideology
Sameer Kulkarni: Accused of providing logistics and organisational support
