Malegaon blast acquittal sparks massive debate as court highlights lack of reliable evidence and investigative lapses in the 2008 case

Mumbai, Aug.01,2025: On September 29, 2008, a motorcycle‑borne bomb exploded near a mosque in Malegaon, killing six and injuring over 100 people. The Anti‑Terrorism Squad (ATS), and later the NIA, charged seven individuals—

Malegaon blast acquittal shocks 17‑year ordeal

Malegaon blast acquittal erupted as headlines across India on July 31, 2025, when a special NIA court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and retired Lt Col Prasad Purohit, nearly 17 years after the deadly 2008 bomb blast. The court ruled that prosecution failed to present “cogent and reliable evidence”, emphasizing that “mere suspicion cannot replace real proof”.

Who were the accused and what were charges

On September 29, 2008, a motorcycle‑borne bomb exploded near a mosque in Malegaon, killing six and injuring over 100 people. The Anti‑Terrorism Squad (ATS), and later the NIA, charged seven individuals—including Sadhvi Pragya and Lt Col Purohit—with terrorism, criminal conspiracy, and under UAPA.

Other accused were Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Sameer Kulkarni, and Sudhakar Dwivedi.

Court finds evidence deeply flawed

Lack of Reliable Forensics & Evidence

The court noted major investigative deficiencies: unclear origins of RDX used, no proof linking blast motorbike conclusively to accused, unreliable meeting logs or witness testimony. The prosecution failed to demonstrate explosives were procured from Kashmir or that bombs were prepared at any accused’s residence.

Suspicious Witnesses & Contaminated Records

Out of hundreds of witness statements, many witnesses recanted. Forensic sample contamination and poorly documented call records were also flagged. The judge criticized ATS for procedural violations during evidence collection.

UAPA Sanction Failure

The judgment ruled that the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) could not be applied because proper sanction orders were lacking, rendering serious charges invalid.

political & public responses

Political Uproar & Vindication

BJP leaders hailed the verdict as a vindication against the “saffron terror” narrative and demanded an apology from opposition parties. BJP’s Nagpur president termed it a rejection of what was “fabricated by Congress to defame Hindus”

Victims & Opposition Outcry

Congress leaders such as Digvijay Singh stressed that “terrorism has no religion” and criticized failure to convict based on strong suspicion. Family members of victims—like Islampura resident Nisar Ahmed, who lost his 19‑year‑old son—declared they will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Accused Voices

Post‑verdict, Lt Col Purohit described the ordeal as “painful and unfortunate,” while Pragya termed the ruling a “saffron victory” over wrongful framing. Other ex‑accused recounted allegations of torture, wrongful detention, and demanded action against officials involved in framing them.

appeal plans and victim voices

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis confirmed the state will review the over 1,000‑page court judgment before deciding on an appeal. Meanwhile, victims’ representatives are determined to challenge the acquittal up to India’s highest courts.

What it means for future terrorism litigation

Malegaon blast acquittal sends a powerful message:

• Courts demand stronger, traceable forensic evidence and legal sanctions.
• Lapses in ATS/NIA investigative protocols are under fresh scrutiny.
• The ruling underscores that suspicion alone cannot convict, especially under UAPA.
• Politically charged terror investigations may face greater judicial scrutiny and accountability demands going forward.

The Malegaon blast acquittal marks a pivotal legal moment: after nearly two decades, the NIA court cleared all accused due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, procedural flaws, and lack of legal sanction. The verdict has sparked political realignments, intensified victim appeals, and raised urgent questions about terrorism prosecution standards in India.