The Bombay High Court, on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, decided to postpone the hearing of an appeal against the acquittal of seven people involved in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. This decision was made because the submitted details about the victims’ family members were incomplete.
Among the seven individuals who had been acquitted in the case were prominent figures such as former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit.
Previously, on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the High Court had clarified that it was ‘not an open gate for everyone’ to file appeals against acquittals in the blast case. The court had also specifically requested information on whether the victims’ family members had been examined as witnesses during the original trial.
On Wednesday, the lawyer representing the appellants provided a chart of details, but the bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, found it to be insufficient. The family members’ lawyer informed the bench that the first appellant, Nisar Ahmed, whose son tragically died in the blast, was not a witness in the trial. However, Mr. Ahmed had been granted permission by the special court to intervene and assist the prosecution during the proceedings.
The lawyer also noted that out of the six appellants, only two had been called as prosecution witnesses. The High Court, deeming the submitted chart ‘confusing’ and ‘incomplete’ as it did not clearly specify who was examined, postponed the hearing until Thursday.
The High Court is currently reviewing an appeal lodged by the family members of the six individuals who lost their lives in the 2008 blast. The appeal challenges the special court’s judgment that acquitted the seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit.
The tragic incident occurred on September 29, 2008, when an explosive device attached to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon, a town approximately 200 km from Mumbai in Maharashtra’s Nashik district. The explosion resulted in six fatalities and left 101 others injured.
The appeal, filed last week, argues that a flawed investigation or procedural defects should not be sufficient grounds for acquitting the accused. It further contended that since the conspiracy was orchestrated in secrecy, direct evidence of its plotting might not exist.
The petitioners claimed that the special NIA court’s order on July 31, which acquitted the seven accused, was incorrect and legally unsound, therefore deserving to be overturned. They asserted that a trial court judge should not act merely as a ‘postman or mute spectator’ in a criminal trial, suggesting that when the prosecution fails to present facts, the court has a duty to ask questions or summon witnesses.
The appeal critically stated that the ‘trial court has unfortunately acted as a mere post office and allowed a deficient prosecution to benefit the accused.’ It also raised significant concerns about the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) handling of the probe and trial, advocating for the conviction of the accused.
The petitioners highlighted that the State Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had uncovered a large conspiracy by arresting the seven individuals, and notably, there have been no similar blasts in minority-populated areas since then. They further alleged that the NIA, upon taking over the case, appeared to have weakened the charges against the accused.
In its judgment, the special court had stated that ‘mere suspicion cannot replace real proof’ and that there was ‘no cogent or reliable evidence to warrant a conviction.’ Special Judge A.K. Lahoti, who presided over the NIA court, concluded that there was ‘no reliable and cogent evidence’ against the accused to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution’s argument was that the blast was orchestrated by right-wing extremists with the intention of terrorizing the Muslim community in the communally sensitive town of Malegaon. However, the NIA court’s judgment identified several shortcomings in the prosecution’s case and the investigation, ultimately granting the accused the benefit of doubt.
The accused who were acquitted in the case included Pragya Thakur, Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni.