NIA Court acquits all seven accused in Malegaon blast case
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK Advertisement Mumbai, July 31: Seventeen years after the Malegaon blast, the long-awaited verdict has been delivered. The…
Image: The New Indian Express
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
Mumbai, July 31: Seventeen years after the Malegaon blast, the long-awaited verdict has been delivered. The NIA Special Court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused — former BJP MP from Bhopal Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni.Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur
Special Judge A K Lahoti ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against them. Consequently, the accused were acquitted of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Arms Act, and other related sections.
The court also directed that the families of the six deceased be paid compensation of ₹2 lakh each, and the injured victims receive ₹50,000 each.
The blast occurred on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Malegaon town, Nashik district of Maharashtra, where an explosive device had been planted on a motorcycle.
The explosion killed six people and injured dozens. Several individuals linked to the Abhinav Bharat organization were named as accused in the case, including Sadhvi Pragya and Lt Col Purohit.
While delivering its verdict, the NIA court said the prosecution could establish that a blast occurred in Malegaon but failed to prove that a bomb was planted on the motorcycle.
The court also noted that the number of injured was 95, not 101, and some medical certificates had been tampered with.
The court observed that UAPA provisions could not apply to this case since the mandatory approvals were not obtained. Both sanction orders under UAPA were found to be defective.
It further stated that there was no evidence to suggest Abhinav Bharat funds were used for terror activities. No explosives or storage materials were found at Col Purohit’s residence.
The forensic investigation was also criticized for lapses. No site sketch was prepared, no fingerprints or digital evidence were collected, and several samples were found contaminated.
The motorcycle’s chassis number was unclear, and it could not be proven that the vehicle was in Sadhvi Pragya’s possession before the blast.
