In a significant development concerning the 2008 Malegaon blast case, the Bombay High Court has formally summoned the seven individuals previously acquitted, along with the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Maharashtra government. These notices were issued on Thursday, September 18, 2025, in response to an appeal lodged by the bereaved families of the blast victims. A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, mandated that all parties receive these notices within two weeks, with the next hearing scheduled in six weeks. The appeal directly contests the special NIA court’s judgment from July 31, 2025, which cleared former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi alias Swami Amrutanand Devtirth, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni of all accusations.
During the court proceedings, advocates Mateen Shaikh and Shahid Nadeem, representing the petitioners, confirmed that all appellant details had been submitted, save for appellant numbers 1 and 6. Appellant 1, Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayyed Bilal, who lost his son Sayyed Azahar in the tragedy, was a permitted intervener during the original trial despite not being a witness. Appellant 6, Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Supdo, the father-in-law of the late Shaikh Rafique, filed the appeal on behalf of Rafique’s widow, Noor Jaha, described as a pardanashin woman. The list of other appellants includes Shaikh Liyaqat Mohiuddin (father of the deceased Farheen), Shaikh Ishaque Shaikh Yusuf (brother of the deceased Mushtaq), Usman Khan Ainullah Khan (uncle of the deceased Irfan), and Mushtaque Shah Haroon Shah (son of the deceased Haroon).
When questioned on the legal foundation for their appeal, the counsel referenced Section 2 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which broadens the definition of ‘victim’ to encompass guardians, alongside a 2009 amendment that strengthened victims’ rights. They further supported their stance by citing a recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Khem Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (July 31, 2025), which affirmed that close relatives and guardians of deceased victims are indeed considered ‘victims.’ However, the Bench clarified that the BNSS was not the governing law for this specific case, and interpretations must align with the prior legal code.
The petitioners’ appeal strongly contends that deficiencies in the investigation should not automatically lead to an acquittal. They emphasized that conspiracies are inherently clandestine, often leaving little direct evidence, and asserted that the trial court erred by merely accepting the prosecution’s case without actively addressing its evident shortcomings.
Earlier in the week, on Tuesday, September 16, the Bombay High Court had indicated that an appeal against acquittal in the Malegaon blast case is ‘not an open invitation for all,’ as it sought precise clarification on the standing of the petitioners challenging the special NIA court’s verdict. The hearing was subsequently adjourned on Wednesday, September 17, due to confusing and incomplete information regarding the appellants’ relationships to the deceased.
The initial acquittal by the special NIA court, presided over by Judge A.K. Lahoti, was based on the premise that mere suspicion does not equate to proof, and the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s ruling highlighted several investigative inconsistencies, granting the benefit of doubt to the accused and leading to their discharge from charges under various statutes, including Sections 307, 324, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967, and Sections 3 to 6 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908.