NIA court set to deliver verdict in Malegaon bomb blast case after 17 years
Seven accused, including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, faced trial in the case for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code.
Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni are the other accused in the case.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conducted the probe into the case, has sought "commensurate punishment" for the accused.
The trial, which started in 2018, got over on April 19, 2025, and the case was reserved for judgement.
Six persons were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008.
In its final argument, the NIA submitted that the blast in Malegaon - a town with a sizable Muslim population - was orchestrated by the conspirators to terrorise a section of Muslim community, disrupt essential services, create communal tensions, and threaten the state's internal security.
The NIA has said that based on "relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proved evidence" it "conclusively and cogently" established the crucial circumstances to form a complete chain of events.
It was established that the accused were "directly involved in the part of larger conspiracy hatched amongst themselves and (were) instrumental in causing a bomb explosion," the prosecution contended.
The blast took place during the holy month of Ramzan, just before the Navratri festival, the NIA pointed out, claiming the intention of the accused was to strike terror in a section of the Muslim community.
The case was initially probed by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) before being transferred to the NIA in 2011.
The trial in the case began in 2018 after the court framed charges against the seven accused.
The charges comprised UAPA sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) and various IPC sections, including 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153 (a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups).
During the trial, the prosecution presented 323 witnesses, of whom 37 turned hostile.
Thakur, in her final statement, submitted that her implication in the case is "totally illegal, bad in law and contrary to the law of the land and with malafide intention and ulterior motive".
Citing the testimony of Mohan Kulkarni, an ATS officer who was part of the probe, Thakur claimed his statement "clearly shows she is an innocent person".
Further referring to the officer's testimony, the BJP leader alleged she has been "implicated in this case by manipulating evidence with a prejudiced mind as it was pre-decided to implicate her".
Purohit has submitted that "there is no material evidence" linking him to the alleged offence.
"The prosecution's case rests on fabricated and contradictory witness statements that are devoid of any independent corroboration and fail to meet the evidentiary threshold required in law," his final arguments claimed.
He alleged the investigation was "tainted by serious procedural irregularities and a complete disregard for standard legal protocols".
"These lapses not only vitiate the fairness of the proceedings but also render the prosecution's case wholly speculative and unreliable," he added.
The other accused, too, have made similar submissions.
The intervenor, representing the victims' side, contended the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case "is a classic example where the defense lacks a reasoned argument".
"Some of the accused claim the bombing never happened, while others blame it on SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India). Each of the seven accused has advanced different and often conflicting defenses which are contrary to each other's claim which itself strengthens the case of prosecution," the victims said in their final submission.
The present prosecuting agency, NIA, has established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of all the accused in the bomb blast, they submitted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
Use RTI to seek reasons for public employment and policy deviations
Recently, an RTI questioner from Coimbatore sought some very useful information. The query was built around RTI's utility in questioning the re-employment order by the Department of Higher Education, with a focus on the use of RTI queries as a tool for public accountability. In a compelling example of how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to challenge administrative decisions, a former professor and RTI activist has raised critical questions about a recent order issued by the Department of Higher Education in Tamil Nadu, which allows re-employment of certain college-level administrative officers beyond the age of superannuation. On July 31, the department issued an order permitting the re-employment of those engaged in administrative functions, even after crossing the age of 60 years. This move, based on a request from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, sparked concern over its legality and consistency with existing government norms. RTI activist seeks answers: N R Ravisankar, an RTI activist and former Head of the Mathematics Department at CBM College, Coimbatore, submitted a formal representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, raising a red flag on the order. He cited Government Order (G.O.) 192 dated November 12, 2024, which had categorically barred re-employment for such positions beyond the age of 60. Prof. Ravisankar argues that the new order contradicts this amendment to G.O. 92, which states: 'Every government servant in the superior as well as basic service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years. They shall not be retained in service after that age.' Questions raised under RTI: The activist's move highlights how RTI can be effectively used to demand transparency and rationale behind policy reversals or deviations. Through RTI applications and petitions, the following key questions can be posed to the Department of Higher Education and relevant authorities: Did the Higher Education Department consult the Law Department before issuing this July 31 G.O.? If yes, provide copies of such legal opinions. Has any review committee or expert panel been constituted to examine the impact of re-employment on governance, recruitment opportunities for younger candidates, and institutional autonomy? How many officials have been re-employed under this new order? Please provide a district-wise list with names, designations, and dates of reappointment. Was the re-employment order placed before the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly or its relevant committee for oversight, especially in light of its policy implications? Is there any provision under existing UGC regulations or the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules that permits administrative staff to continue beyond superannuation age, specifically in aided colleges? What was the rationale behind cancelling re-employment in an earlier instance—such as the case of a government-aided college in Coimbatore where a new principal was directed to be appointed upon the previous incumbent's retirement? Does the July 31, 2025 G.O. apply to government-aided institutions as well? If yes, how does this comply with the statutory and financial norms applicable to such institutions? Legal and ethical dilemma: Prof Ravisankar underscores that such re-employment orders not only defy the retirement age rule but also block opportunities for younger aspirants in the education sector. 'If the rule is clear that retirement is mandatory at 60, how can administrative exceptions be allowed selectively? It defeats the very purpose of uniformity and public interest in service rules,' he said in his representation. His RTI-based challenge exemplifies how citizens and professionals can act as watchdogs over executive discretion, especially in sectors like education, where transparency and accountability are vital for fair governance. An administrative question: Whether the Department of Higher Education will issue a clarification or revoke the July 31 order remains to be seen. To reinforce the utility of the Right to Information (RTI) in questioning government re-employment policies post-superannuation, we can refer to a landmark decision by this author (Prof. (Dr.) M. Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner (CIC)). This answer underscored citizens' right to seek reasons and file queries regarding public employment and policy deviations, especially those affecting transparency and equal opportunity. In File No: CIC/SA/A/2016/001978, the CIC ruled that: 'Public authorities are bound to give reasons for selection, extension, or re-employment of public servants, especially when there is a departure from standard procedure or existing policy.' This judgment arose in the context of an RTI applicant seeking details about the re-employment of a retired officer in a central government department. The Central Information Commission directed the public authority to: Disclose the note sheets and file notings showing the rationale for re-employment. Provide copies of approval orders, correspondence, and minutes of meetings that led to the decision. Clarify whether any rules were relaxed or amended to allow such re-employment. In his detailed reasoning, he emphasised: 'When a government servant is re-employed post-retirement, especially when young and qualified aspirants are awaiting regular appointments, the authorities must place on record the compelling public interest that justified such a move.' This principle is directly relevant to the July 31, 2025 re-employment order issued by the Tamil Nadu Department of Higher Education. Based on that ruling, the following implications arise: Citizens can question: Activists like Prof Ravisankar can seek: 1. The file notings, justifications, and correspondence from the Higher Education Department and Collegiate Education Commissioner-On whether any rules under G.O. 92 or G.O. 192 were amended or bypassed. 2. Lack of transparency violates the RTI mandate-If the July 31 order does not disclose public interest justifications, it could be seen as arbitrary or opaque, inviting challenge under RTI as well as judicial review. 3. Re-employment must serve public interest, not individual continuity-As noted in the order: Public offices are not meant for the convenience of individuals but for the service of the public. 4. RTI is a tool to uphold equality and fair opportunity-Re-employment of individuals beyond 60, without open recruitment or advertisement, raises serious concerns about denial of opportunity to eligible younger candidates, which can be pursued through RTI. Activists or citizens can file RTIs asking for: Copy of the July 31 G.O. with background file notes and recommendations; Details of consultation with the Law Department, if any. This judgment of CIC affirms that RTI is a powerful legal mechanism to challenge arbitrary re-employment, demand transparency in administrative decisions, and protect the rights of deserving aspirants. In the current Tamil Nadu case, this precedent strengthens the position of public-spirited individuals like Prof Ravisankar in ensuring that public policy does not become a tool for preferential or non-transparent governance. (The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
PWD corruption case: ‘No proof' against Delhi ex-minister Satyendar Jain; court accepts CBI closure report
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Monday accepted the closure report filed by CBI in a case registered against former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain and others over allegations of irregular engagement of professionals in the PWD and payments made from unrelated project funds. The court of special judge Dig Vinay Singh noted that despite several years of investigation, no incriminating evidence was found against anyone to support charges under the Prevention of Corruption (POC) Act, 1988, or any other offence. "When the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC Act, 1988, further proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Not every decision made in an official capacity-that does not strictly follow rules-warrants invoking the POC Act. There must be at least some material to justify applying the provisions of the POC Act, 1988. Mere neglect of duty or improper exercise of duty alone may not constitute a violation under the POC Act," the judge said. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "It is also worth noting that, even to charge someone, mere suspicion is not enough; at least strong suspicion would be necessary to proceed," the court observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is AI the secret to mastering a new language faster than ever? See why experts are buzzing. Talkpal AI Undo The FIR was registered in 2018 against Jain, who was the then PWD minister, and other PWD officials, based on a complaint from Delhi govt's directorate of vigilance. According to prosecution, Jain and PWD officials irregularly hired a 'creative team' of consultants, breaching recruitment and financial regulations. The court said CBI found no evidence of pecuniary advantage, conspiracy, or corruption, and the protest petition does not provide any sufficient prima facie evidence from investigations or otherwise, warranting further inquiry. "Since the issues relate to administrative decisions without criminal elements, and more than six years have passed, further investigation is unwarranted. CBI requests the protest petition be dismissed and the closure report accepted," the court ruled. The judge said that if any fresh material is received against anyone, CBI would be at liberty to probe the matter further. Other pending cases against Jain include CCTV project corruption case, a money laundering case and disproportionate case. In March 2025, a case was registered against Jain for allegedly accepting a Rs 7 crore bribe to waive off a penalty imposed on Bharat Electronics Ltd for delays in installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. In the money laundering case, he was arrested by ED in May 2022 for alleged money laundering. In Jan 2025, CBI informed a special court that it had secured approval from Delhi LG to prosecute Jain in a disproportionate assets case.
Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Jaipur Exp shootout: RPF jawan looks blankly as witness recalls him shooting 2 passengers
Mumbai: For the first time since his trial began in November 2024, former Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable Chetan Singh Chaudhary was present in person in court on Monday. Clad in a t-shirt and trousers, the 35-year-old who made headlines after allegedly shooting down his senior and three identifiably Muslim passengers on board the Jaipur-Mumbai Superfast Express on the night of July 31, 2023, presented a picture of docility as he was led into and out of the courtroom by policemen. Clad in a t-shirt and trousers, the 35-year-old Chetan Singh Chaudhary presented a picture of docility as he was led into and out of the courtroom by policemen (Raju Shinde/ HT Photo) Singh, earlier lodged in Akola Central Jail, was undergoing treatment at Thane Mental Hospital earlier this year, and is currently lodged in Thane Central Jail. The court on Monday passed an order barring his transfer back to Akola without its permission. Singh's former colleague, dismissed RPF head constable Narendra Parmar, a crucial eye witness, started his deposition with a long hard look at Singh. Though Parmar looked at the accused often during his deposition, Singh looked blank and distant throughout. Parmar's examination in chief by additional public prosecutor Sudhir Sapkale was left incomplete in March because a hospitalised Singh could not be present in court, even through video conferencing. When it resumed on Monday, Parmar described the chilling encounter between Singh and one of his victims, as well as the fear that gripped passengers as the armed cop moved from compartment to compartment. Parmar had earlier deposed that he had seen Singh take with him a bearded, kurta-clad passenger at gunpoint. He later saw the passenger's body lying in a pool of blood on the floor near the pantry car. As he followed Singh, said Parmar, he saw him stop and talk to another bearded passenger wearing a grey kurta. Parmar could hear him 'begging for mercy' and telling Singh: 'I am an ordinary Mullaji. I too believe in God. Bhagwan and Allah are the same.' Singh looked angry at that moment, said Parmar, adding: 'I felt he would kill me too.' This time too, said Parmar, there were passengers between him and Singh, as well as behind Singh. Hence, though he was carrying a pistol, he could not prevent Singh from firing two bullets into the passenger's chest. As he had after the first shooting, Parmar called his colleague Amey Acharya, who was in another part of the train, to tell him what had happened and asked him to inform the control room. The train then came to a halt between Mira Road and Dahisar stations as someone pulled the chain, Parmar said. As he went towards compartment S5, Parmar met guard Vijay Jena who had come there to inquire about what had happened. On the south side of the compartment, they saw two bodies lying on the floor, oozing blood. One of the passengers, whom Parmar identified as Ibrahim Batatawala, told them that he had pulled the chain because 'one of your staff was threatening us'. The passengers, who all seemed scared, also told them that as soon as the train had stopped, Singh had jumped off and was walking along the tracks. Shaken by what he had seen, Jena asked Parmar to accompany him to the guard's cabin. Later, when the train was taken to the Bombay Central railway yard, Parmar showed the spots where he had seen the two bodies to the deputy station superintendent, the police personnel who had come there and the videographer. In court, Parmar identified the photographs of the two passengers whom he had witnessed being threatened and shot by Singh. His deposition will continue on Tuesday.
