Bombay High Court Dismisses Charges in 2006 Malegaon Blasts Case
In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court has quashed the charges against four Hindu accused in the 2006 Malegaon blasts case. The court ruled that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) failed to provide sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial, marking a pivotal moment in this long-standing investigation.
Background of the Case
The 2006 Malegaon blasts initially led to the arrest of nine Muslim individuals by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). However, in 2016, the NIA trial court dropped the case against them due to a lack of evidence. Subsequently, between 2012 and 2013, the NIA arrested four Hindu accused: Manohar Narwaria, Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, and Lokesh Sharma. Their lawyers have now confirmed that, following a successful appeal, these individuals face no trial.
Key Arguments in the Appeals
The appeals were filed by two sets of accused, represented by senior counsel Girish Kulkarni and advocate Kaushik Mhatre. They argued that the NIA, as the prosecuting agency, had no concrete evidence against their clients. Consequently, the trial court was not obligated to frame charges. A central point in the appeals was the reliance on the confession of Swami Aseemanand, an accused in another blasts case. This confession was later rejected by trial courts in Hyderabad and Ajmer, which deemed it coerced and thus inadmissible, undermining the basis for implicating the four accused.
Kulkarni further contended that the NIA presented only three circumstantial pieces of evidence:
- The discovery of the blast site, which was already known from the ATS probe.
- The alleged purchase of two bicycles, with no witnesses or proof linking them to the crime.
- An identification parade conducted after 6.5 years, which was considered unreliable as cogent proof.
Additionally, the appeals noted that two of the accused were arrested in Madhya Pradesh, while the other two were detained from Ambala Central Jail in connection with the Samjhauta Express blast case.
Investigative History and Agency Disputes
The initial investigation was conducted by the ATS, followed by further probes by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). However, the NIA did not accept the CBI's findings and filed a separate chargesheet against the four accused. During the High Court proceedings, additional solicitor general Anil Singh opposed the appeal on behalf of the NIA. Special public prosecutor Kuldeep Patil represented the CBI, and when questioned by the High Court about appealing the discharge of the earlier nine accused, Patil confirmed that the CBI had not done so.
Evidence and Bail Considerations
The NIA claimed that soil samples collected from an alleged training camp tested positive for RDX, but the appeals countered that these samples were lifted seven years after the incident, raising doubts about their reliability. Moreover, the four accused were granted bail by the High Court, which, upon reviewing the NIA's probe, observed that no incriminating evidence had been recovered from them. This observation played a crucial role in the court's decision to quash the charges.
This ruling follows last July's acquittal of all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case by a special trial court, highlighting ongoing challenges in prosecuting such high-profile terrorism cases.
Author Information
Swati Deshpande, a senior editor at The Times of India in Mumbai, has been covering courts for over a decade. Passionate about law, she works to enlighten the public on statutory, legal, and fundamental rights, striving to decipher the truth in complex civil and criminal cases.
