Malegaon Blast Case Verdict Being Pronounced, 17 Years After The Deadly Explosion

Seventeen years after a powerful blast hit Malegaon in Maharashtra, a special NIA court in Mumbai will pronounce its verdict in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case today.

The explosion, on the night of September 29, 2008, near Bhikku Chowk in Malegaon, killed six people and left more than a hundred injured. A low-intensity bomb fitted to a motorcycle went off near a busy intersection, triggering panic and chaos in the communally sensitive town.

Initially investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), the case saw a dramatic turn when the probe led to the arrest of individuals linked to Hindu right-wing groups - giving rise to the controversial political phrase "Hindu terror." Among those arrested were former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and former Army officer Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, who both denied involvement and were later granted bail.

The case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2011, which re-registered the offence and conducted further investigations. Since then, multiple chargesheets and supplementary reports have been filed. The trial began in 2018 after charges were formally framed against seven accused.

Over the course of the trial, the court examined 323 prosecution witnesses and eight defence witnesses. A large volume of evidence was submitted, including more than 10,800 exhibits and over 400 articles seized during the investigation. Approximately 40 witnesses turned hostile during the proceedings.

Final arguments from the prosecution and defence concluded in April 2025. The prosecution submitted detailed written arguments spanning over 1,300 pages, along with legal citations and documentary evidence. The judgment was reserved on April 19.

The verdict will be pronounced by A K Lahoti of the Special NIA Court, Mumbai. All seven accused are currently out on bail.

The Malegaon case has remained at the centre of legal, political, and ideological debates in India. With the court now set to decide on guilt or innocence, the verdict is expected to have significant ramifications across political and legal spheres.

The 2 Main Accused-Sadhvi Pragya And Lt Col Purohit

Among the seven on trial, Sadhvi Pragya and Lt Col Purohit emerged as the most prominent and controversial accused in the case.

Sadhvi Pragya, a former Member of Parliament from Bhopal, was arrested in October 2008. The motorcycle used in the blast was registered in her name. The Maharashtra ATS claimed that she was part of a larger conspiracy to target Muslim-dominated areas in retaliation for earlier terror attacks.

Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur's motorcycle was allegedly used in the blast

Lt Col Purohit, then an Indian Army officer posted in military intelligence, was accused of providing logistical and material support to a radical Hindu group named Abhinav Bharat, which the ATS alleged was behind the Malegaon blast. Investigators claimed Purohit helped arrange explosives and was part of meetings where attacks were allegedly planned.

Both have denied the charges, alleging they were falsely implicated and tortured during the probe. 

JP Mishra, advocate representing Sadhvi Pragya said, "The ATS planted evidence against Sadhvi Pragya Thakur and the other accused, because they couldn't find any evidence. MCOCA was slapped without any basis, accused were tortured. They fabricated evidence to prove their propaganda of 'saffron terror'. We are certain that truth will prevail and my client will be acquitted."

The NIA, after taking over the case in 2011, dropped certain charges initially framed by the ATS, including those under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), but retained charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. Both accused were granted bail in 2017. 

ATS's Claims (Initial Investigation)

The Malegaon blast was initially investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). The ATS, then led by Hemant Karkare, claimed that the blast was carried out by individuals linked to right-wing Hindu extremist groups. Their investigation marked a turning point in Indian counter-terrorism narratives, as it was the first time that individuals associated with Hindu organisations were accused of terrorism.

The ATS arrested Sadhvi Pragya, whose motorcycle was allegedly used in the blast. Investigators claimed that she was actively involved in the planning and had provided the vehicle to the perpetrators. Lt Col Purohit was arrested later and accused of being a key ideologue and facilitator. The ATS alleged that Purohit, through his association with the group Abhinav Bharat, arranged meetings, recruited individuals, and procured RDX used in the blast.

The ATS claimed the blast was part of a broader plan to carry out retaliatory attacks against Muslims. Statements from co-accused and witnesses were cited, including allegations that meetings were held in Bhopal, Faridabad, and other locations where the idea of forming a "Hindu Rashtra" and launching attacks was discussed. The ATS charged the accused under stringent laws, including the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

NIA's Arguments (Post-2011 Investigation)

In April 2011, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the case. While the NIA continued with the prosecution of the main accused, its findings diverged in some crucial areas from the ATS's earlier version. In its supplementary charge sheet filed in 2016, the NIA dropped charges under MCOCA and exonerated several individuals previously named by the ATS, citing lack of prosecutable evidence. NIA found serious loopholes in ATS probe and alleged that accused were tortured to extract confessional statements. 

The NIA, however, kept the charges under UAPA, IPC, and Arms Act intact against key accused like Sadhvi Pragya and Lt Col Purohit.

The agency's case rested on the involvement of Abhinav Bharat, which it said was the ideological front where meetings were held to discuss retaliatory attacks. Although the NIA sought to discharge Thakur from the case, the special court held that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with her trial. Purohit, it alleged, had a larger role, supplying explosives, ideological support, and coordinating with other group members.

The prosecution submitted over 1,300 pages of written arguments and cited forensic evidence, call data records, and statements from witnesses to support its claims. It examined 323 prosecution witnesses during the trial.

Defence's Position 

The defence teams representing Sadhvi Pragya, Lt Col Purohit, and the other accused have denied all charges and claimed that the case is based on fabricated evidence and political motivation.

For Sadhvi Pragya, the defence argued that the ownership of the motorcycle did not prove her involvement in the blast. She claimed the vehicle had been in someone else's possession for months. Her lawyers accused the ATS of implicating her without any direct evidence and questioned the credibility of witnesses whose statements were later withdrawn.

Lt Col Purohit's defence centered on the claim that he was working as an undercover Army officer, infiltrating Abhinav Bharat to gather intelligence on extremist activities. His legal team said he had kept his superiors informed, and there was no evidence to show he supported or facilitated the blast. They further alleged that evidence was planted and RDX traces were manipulated by the ATS to frame him.

Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit is accused of floating Abhinav Bharat

The defence also pointed to the large number of hostile witnesses - nearly 40 - who retracted their earlier statements given to the ATS. They argued that the investigation lacked consistency and that key procedural lapses, including forced confessions and custodial abuse, undermined the prosecution's case.

Ramesh Upadhyay, an accused on the case, said, "The investigation done by various agencies are totally fraud and false. They have framed us and cooked up evidence. We were tortured in police custody by the ATS, witnesses were also tortured to implicate us. The witnesses later retracted their statements taken out of coercion."

In addition, the defence highlighted that the NIA itself dropped serious charges, including MCOCA, which weakened the theory of an organised crime conspiracy. They accused successive governments of politicising the case, especially with the usage of terms like "Hindu terror," and claimed the accused were being targeted for their ideological background. 

Sameer Kulkarni, an accused said, "Truth will be out on July 31. Case collapsed after the NIA took over, many witnesses turned hostile and many accused were also discharged. We hope top cops who misused their power to frame us will be punished." 

Political Reverberations

The case became a national political flashpoint, as it was the first time individuals associated with Hindu right-wing groups were accused of terrorism. The term "Hindu terror" or "saffron terror" was widely used in political debates, with the Congress party backing the investigation at the time and BJP accusing it of defaming an entire community.

BJP, in later years, strongly criticised the Congress for coining the term and fielded Sadhvi Pragya as a Lok Sabha candidate in 2019 - a move that further polarised public discourse.

Conclusion

The ATS built the initial framework of the case around a theory of right-wing terrorism, naming prominent individuals linked to Hindu nationalist groups. The NIA upheld the core allegation of a planned terrorist act but revised parts of the case, including dropping MCOCA and discharging some accused. The defence, in turn, maintained that the case is politically tainted and lacks credible, admissible evidence.

As the Special NIA Court prepares to deliver its verdict, the judgment is expected to have lasting legal, political, and social impact, bringing closure to a case that has shaped the discourse on terror and investigation in India for nearly two decades.

Key Milestones In The Case

• September 29, 2008: Blast kills six in Malegaon
• October 2008: ATS arrests Sadhvi Pragya, later followed by Purohit
• January 2009: First charge sheet filed by ATS
• April 2011: NIA takes over the case
• 2016: NIA files supplementary charge sheet, drops some charges but retains key terror charges
• 2018: Charges formally framed against seven accused
• 2018-2023: Prosecution examines 323 witnesses; Approximately 40 turn hostile
• April 2025: Final arguments conclude. Judgment reserved

The Trial: One Of India's Longest Terror Cases

The Malegaon blast trial has been one of the most complex and politically sensitive terror trials in recent memory:

• Over 10,800 exhibits were submitted
• 404 articles were seized and tagged as evidence
• The court examined 323 prosecution witnesses and 8 defence witnesses
• Nearly 40 witnesses turned hostile, including some key ones linked to the early ATS probe
• The trial spanned five different NIA judges
• The prosecution submitted its final written arguments in three volumes, totalling over 1,300 pages, in April 2025. Both sides were allowed rebuttals, and the verdict was reserved on April 19, 2025