SC stays Bombay HC order on 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case; no stay on release of 12 acquitted

Mint

24-07-2025

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Bombay High Court's 21 July order in the 7/11 Mumbai train bomb blasts case. While it did not stay the release of all 12 acquitted individuals, the court ruled that 'the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent'.
On 21 July, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case of 2006. The high court quashed and set aside the judgment of a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) court, which handed over the death sentence to five and life term to seven people accused of conspiring and executing the Mumbai train bomb blasts on 11 July 2006.
A high court bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Shyam Chandak then observed that 'the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubts.' They said the evidence relied on by the prosecution was not conclusive in convicting the accused persons.
Later, the State of Maharashtra challenged the Bombay High Court's judgment. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, told the bench that he was not seeking an order to direct the accused persons, who have been released from prison following the judgment, to surrender.
However, Mehta requested a stay of the judgment, contending that some of the observations made by the High Court in the judgment can impact other pending trials under the MCOCA.
'Your lordships may consider saying, the judgment is stayed; however, they will not be required to come back to the prison,' SG was quoted by Live Law as saying.
Following the government's appeal, the Supreme Court bench observed on Thursday, 24 July: 'We have been informed that all the respondents have been released and there is no question of bringing them back to the prison.'
'However, taking note of the submission made by the SG on the question of law, we are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. To that extent, there is a stay of the impugned judgment,' the Supreme Court said.