The Bombay High Court has discharged the last four remaining accused in the 2006 Malegaon serial blasts case, marking a significant legal impasse nearly two decades after the explosions that claimed 31 lives and injured over 300 people. The court’s decision brings the pursuit of justice for the victims to a standstill, leaving the question of who was responsible for the devastating attacks unanswered.
Case Reaches Legal Dead End as All Accused Discharged
The High Court’s ruling on Wednesday discharged the four men—Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, Manohar Ram Singh Narwaria, and Lokesh Sharma—who were the final individuals facing trial in connection with the blasts. The court found insufficient evidence to proceed with their trial and criticized the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for allegedly overlooking evidence gathered by previous investigative bodies. This development signifies a somber milestone in India’s judicial history, with no one currently on trial for one of the region’s most impactful acts of violence.
The trajectory of the Malegaon case has been marked by numerous twists and turns. Initially, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) blamed the bombings on members of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). However, a subsequent investigation by the NIA, which took over the case in 2011, shifted the focus to right-wing Hindu extremist groups. The NIA’s chargesheet in 2013 named eight members of the Abhinav Bharat group. This contrast in findings between different agencies has been a central point of contention.
Conflicting Investigations and Judicial Scrutiny
A bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak noted that the NIA had “completely ignored” the probe and chargesheet of the ATS. The court observed that the case appears to have reached a “dead end,” with the opposing narratives presented by the ATS and NIA being irreconcilable. The High Court criticized the special NIA court for not applying its mind sufficiently when framing charges against the four accused.
The prosecution’s case against the four men largely relied on circumstantial evidence, including retracted confessional statements of other accused and hearsay testimonies. The court pointed out that the NIA’s investigation seemed to rely on a statement made by Swami Aseemanand, which was later retracted, and questioned the agency’s methodology, including the collection of evidence six years after the incident. The High Court noted that there was no direct eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the blasts.
The legal proceedings have been further complicated by the fact that the original nine Muslim men arrested by the ATS were discharged by a special court in 2016 due to a lack of evidence, a decision that the ATS had challenged. The NIA’s investigation, in contrast, led to the framing of charges against the four men, who were arrested much later. The Bombay High Court had granted bail to these four accused in 2019, citing the lack of witness testimony and reliable identification after they had been incarcerated for over six years without trial.
A History of Investigations and Acquittals
The 2006 Malegaon blasts occurred on September 8, 2006, in Malegaon, a town in Maharashtra’s Nashik district. Three bombs exploded within the premises of Hamidia Masjid and Bada Kabrastan shortly after Friday prayers, and a fourth bomb detonated at Mushawarat Chowk. The explosions resulted in 31 fatalities and injured over 312 individuals. The event took place during Shab-e-Barat, a day of religious significance for Muslims.
The investigation initially involved the Maharashtra ATS, followed by the CBI, and finally the NIA. Each agency presented different theories and identified different sets of suspects. The NIA’s approach, which focused on right-wing extremist involvement, was based on statements from individuals like Swami Aseemanand, who later recanted. The subsequent discharge of all accused in related cases, including the 2008 Malegaon blasts where all seven accused, including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, were acquitted in July 2025 due to lack of evidence, further underscores the challenges in establishing culpability.
The High Court’s decision to discharge the final four accused brings the case to a close, at least for now, but leaves victims’ families without the closure they have sought for nearly two decades. The legal saga highlights the complexities of terrorism investigations, the challenges in gathering admissible evidence, and the significant impact of evolving investigative theories on the course of justice.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
