Bombay High Court serves notices to NIA, Pragya Thakur in 2008 Malegaon blast case

The Bombay High Court on September 18 issued notices to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the seven accused acquitted in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit.

The move comes as the victims’ families seek to overturn the controversial special court verdict that cleared all accused of charges ranging from criminal conspiracy to murder.

The September 29, 2008 blast near a mosque in Malegaon, Maharashtra’s Nashik district, claimed six lives and injured over 100. In a July 31 ruling, Special Judge A K Lahoti acquitted Thakur, Purohit, Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi of all allegations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The appeal was filed by the family members of the deceased, including Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayyed Bilal, Shaikh Liyaqat Mohiuddin, Shaikh Ishaque Shaikh Yusuf, Usman Khan Ainullah Khan, Mushtaque Shah Haroon Shah, and Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Supdo.

The high court bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad, questioned whether the appellants had been examined during the trial, noting that “it is not an open gate” for everyone to challenge acquittals.

Advocate Mateen Shaikh, representing the victims’ kin, informed the court that one of the appellants had acted as an intervenor and four others had testified during the trial, making them legally competent to file the appeal. Accordingly, the high court directed notices to be served to the acquitted accused at their current addresses and to the NIA.

The court also instructed the appellants’ counsel to furnish necessary documents and supporting precedents within two weeks. The appeal is scheduled to be heard after six weeks.

The victims’ families argue that the NIA’s involvement weakened the case, giving undue benefit to the accused. They contend that the July 31 special court verdict “is not maintainable on facts or law” and was delivered “contrary to settled principles of evidence,” demanding it be set aside and the accused convicted.