During the hearing of the appeal filed by victims of the 2008 Malegaon Blast against the acquittal of former BJP MP Pragya Thakur, Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, and others, the Bombay High Court, led by Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, made it clear that it would consider the plea only if the appellants had been witnesses in the original trial.

These appellants, represented by advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh, include family members of those who either perished or were injured in the devastating blast in Malegaon, a town nearly 200 km from Mumbai.

Chief Justice Chandrashekhar, addressing the appellants, questioned, "Were any of you witnesses in the trial? Show us if you were witnesses," when advocate Shaikh attempted to guide the bench through the case papers. Although Shaikh highlighted that Nisar Bilal lost his son in the blast, the Chief Justice retorted, "If your son had died you should have been the witness in the case. What is the reason that you didn't examine yourself? It cannot be an open gate for all (to challenge the judgment)."

Facts:

The special court had acquitted all accused, stating that the prosecution failed to establish that the bike involved in the explosion belonged to Pragya Thakur. It remarked that Thakur had renounced worldly life, becoming a 'Sadhvi' two years before the blast and found no substantive evidence against her or the other accused.

Regarding the allegation of RDX being planted at Col. Purohit’s residence, the court noted the absence of material evidencing explosive storage and found no proof that Abhinav Bharat, an organization founded by Pragya Thakur and Col. Purohit, funded terror activities.

The trial, which commenced in 2018 and concluded with a reserved judgment set for April 19, 2025, involved seven accused, including Pragya Thakur, Col. Prasad Purohit, and others like Major (retd.) Ramesh Upadhyay and Ajay Rahirkar.

The victims’ appeal challenged the trial court's decision on the LML motorcycle, arguing that the court incorrectly relied on the absence of visits by ATS officers to Surat inquiring about Pragya’s motorcycle.

The appeal states: "Irrespective of the record of ATS officers' visit, the evidence of PW-261, PW-279 and RTO officer PW-256 Jitendrasinh Narubhai Vaghela is sufficient to conclude that the bike found at the scene belonged to Pragya Thakur. There is no evidence produced by her to prove that she had given away the LML motorcycle purchased in her name, or that it had been stolen. Despite this, her uncorroborated claim that she had long parted with her bike, as well as the opinion (without evidence) of PW-321 was relied upon by the Trial Court to hold that she cannot be connected to the bike used in the blasts."

With respect to Col. Purohit, the victims pointed out that he admitted to attending 'conspiracy meetings' during official duty, an essential piece of evidence they feel the trial court overlooked.

Furthermore, several defense witnesses, including Purohit's superiors, testified under oath about his attendance at conspiracy meetings and intelligence-gathering, but none confirmed that he reported to them.

The appeal highlights, "It has come before the Trial court he was neither deployed by his senior officer for attending meeting as official duty nor was he sending any report to senior officer with respect of that meeting."

Evidence revealed that the blast itself occurred on September 29, 2008, when an explosive device attached to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon. The case was initially investigated by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) under slain cop Hemant Karkare, and a chargesheet was filed in January 2009 against 12 accused including Thakur and Purohit.

However, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) assumed control in 2011 and filed a supplementary chargesheet on May 13, 2016.

The ATS alleged that Thakur, Purohit, and others were involved in meetings at various locations where plans for the incident were discussed. The ATS further stated that the motorcycle used in the blast was registered in Thakur’s name. It initially charged all accused under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

Between 2011 and 2016, the NIA opposed granting relief to Thakur, but later, in a supplementary chargesheet, it withdrew all charges against her while continuing to pursue charges against the other accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Explosive Substances Act.

The NIA charge sheet, in contrast to the ATS findings, stated that it found no substantial evidence against Thakur. It further alleged that the ATS had coerced witnesses into making statements against her. The agency also recommended that the MCOCA charges be dropped against all 12 accused persons.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed its chargesheet without informing its designated Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Avinash Rasal. However, the special court declined to discharge Thakur, citing that the incriminating evidence from the ATS could not be ignored.

Case Details: NISAR AHMED SAYYED BILAL AND ORS Vs. PRAGYA SINGH

CHANDRAPALSINGH THAKUR @ SWAMI PURNA CHENTNANAD GIRI AND ORS