2008 Malegaon Blast: Victims Move Bombay High Court Challenging Special Court Order Acquitting Pragya Thakur, Other Accused

Victims of the 2008 Malegaon Bomb Blast case have moved the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment of the special court which had acquitted all the accused in the case including former BJP leader Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit.

The appeal filed by Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal, is likely to be heard by a division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale, on September 15.

Other victims - Shaikh Liyaqat Mohiuddin, Shaikh Ishaque Shaikh Yusuf, Usman Khan Ainullah Khan, Mushtaque Shah Haroon Shah and Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Supdo, have also filed the appeals along with Bilal through advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh.

Notably, the special court while acquitting all the accused, held that the prosecution failed to prove that the bike which exploded belonged to Pragya. It further stated that the right-wing leader had become a 'Sadhvi' at least 2 years before the blast and renounced the 'material world.' It further found no cogent material against her or any other accused.

About planting of RDX at co-accused Col. Purohit's residence, Court had said that there was no material on record about the storage of explosives. The Court further stated that there is no evidence to the effect that Abhinav Bharat, an organisation founded by Pragya Thakur and Col. Purohit, used its funds for terror activities.

The judgment in this case was reserved on April 19, 2025, after the trial was commenced in the year 2018. The trial in this case, which has major political overtones, was conducted against seven accused including former BJP MP Thakur, Col. Prasad Purohit, Major (retd.) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni.

In the appeal, the victims, with regards to the LML motorcycle, have argued that the trial court wrongly relied on the fact that there was no evidence of the visits made by the ATS officers to Surat to enquire into Pragya's motorcycle.

"Irrespective of the record of ATS officers' visit, the evidence of PW-261, PW-279 and RTO officer PW-256 Jitendrasinh Narubhai Vaghela is sufficient to conclude that the bike found at the scene belonged to Pragya Thakur. There is no evidence produced by her to prove that she had given away the LML motorcycle purchased in her name, or that it had been stolen. Despite this, her uncorroborated claim that she had long parted with her bike, as well as the opinion (without evidence) of PW-321 was relied upon by the Trial Court to hold that she cannot be connected to the bike used in the blasts," the appeal reads. 

As regards Purohit, the victims have stated that he has in his testimony admitted attending the 'conspiracy meetings' in the official duty but the trial court failed to appreciate this crucial piece of evidence. Furthermore, it is submitted that several defence witnesses (his superiors) stated on oath that he was attending conspiracy meetings and gathering intelligence but, none of them had deposed that he was reporting to them. "It has come before the Trial court he was neither deployed by his senior officer for attending meeting as official duty nor was he sending any report to senior officer with respect of that meeting," the plea says.

The blast took place on September 29, 2008 with an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle was exploded near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai. The case was initially investigated by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) under slain cop Hemant Karkare. It had filed a chargesheet in January 2009 against all the 12 accused including Thakur and Purohit, who were arrested months after the blast.

However, the case was taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2011, which filed its supplementary chargesheet on May 13, 2016.

The ATS version alleged that Thakur and Purohit, the founder of Abhinav Bharat, a right wing organisation, along with other accused, hatched a conspiracy to take 'revenge' and 'terrorise' the Muslim community. It further stated that there were several 'conspiracy meetings' that took place in Bhopal, Indore and other places.

According to the ATS, Thakur had provided a motorcycle, which was used for executing the blast. The said motorcycle, the ATS said was registered in Thakur's name.

In its charge sheet, the ATS had levelled several charges including the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) against all the accused.

The NIA from 2011 till 2016 had been opposing Thakur for any relief she sought, however, in a complete 'about turn' the anti terrorism agency, dropped all the charges against her in its 'supplementary chargesheet.' It however, maintained the version of the ATS as against other accused and chargesheeted them under several stringent acts including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Explosive Substances Act.

Contrary to the ATS, the charge sheet of NIA stated that it could not found any crucial evidence against Thakur and instead accused the ATS for 'torturing' witnesses to record their statements against her. The agency had also recommended to drop off the charges of MCOCA against all the 12 accused.

It would not be out of place to mention that the NIA had filed its chargesheet in a dramatic manner, without informing its designated Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Avinash Rasal.

However, the special court had refused to discharge Thakur despite the NIA giving her a clean chit. It had held that it cannot neglect the incriminating material adduced against her by the ATS.

Notably, this case has been in the news for several controversies. The special public prosecutor prior to Rasal was Rohini Salian, who was abruptly dropped after she alleged that the NIA asked her to 'go soft' against the right-wing leaders booked in the case.