On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the Bombay High Court declared that the avenue for appealing against acquittals is “not an open gate for everyone,” specifically in reference to the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The court has requested detailed information on whether the family members of the victims were called as witnesses during the trial.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad was reviewing an appeal lodged by the families of the six individuals who tragically lost their lives in the blast. This appeal contests the special court’s judgment that acquitted all seven accused, including prominent figures like former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit.
The High Court pressed for clarity on whether the family members had provided witness testimony in the initial trial. The advocate representing the families stated that Nisar Ahmed, the first appellant whose son died in the incident, was not a witness, promising to provide further details by Wednesday, September 17.
Responding to this, the Bench commented that if the appellant’s son was a victim, Nisar Ahmed should have been a witness. “You [appellants] have to indicate whether they were witnesses or not. Give us details. This is not an open gate for everyone,” the court firmly stated, before scheduling the next hearing for Wednesday.
The appeal, filed just last week, argues that any flaws or defects in the investigation process should not automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused. It also highlighted that since the conspiracy was allegedly orchestrated in secrecy, direct evidence might naturally be scarce.
Petitioners contend that the special NIA court’s acquittal order on July 31 was legally unsound and should be overturned. They asserted that the trial judge should not merely serve as a “postman or mute spectator” and should actively pose questions or summon witnesses if the prosecution fails to present adequate facts. The appeal criticized the trial court for allegedly acting as a mere conduit, thereby allowing a ‘deficient prosecution’ to inadvertently benefit the accused.
Furthermore, the petitioners voiced concerns over the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) handling of the probe and trial, urging the court to convict the accused. They noted that the State Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had initially uncovered a vast conspiracy with the arrest of these seven individuals, and since then, no similar blasts have occurred in minority-populated areas.
A significant point raised in the appeal is the claim that the NIA, after assuming control of the case, systematically diluted the charges against the accused.
Conversely, the special court’s judgment maintained that suspicion alone cannot substitute concrete proof, and there was insufficient ‘cogent or reliable evidence’ to justify a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Special Judge A.K. Lahoti, presiding over the NIA court, cited numerous gaps in the prosecution’s case and the investigation, concluding that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The prosecution’s original theory posited that the blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Malegaon (Nashik district, Maharashtra), was orchestrated by right-wing extremists intending to terrorize the Muslim community. The explosion killed six and injured 101 people. In addition to Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, the acquitted individuals included Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni.