Nearly 17 years after a blast killed six people and injured more than 100 in Maharashtra’s communally sensitive Malegaon town, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court is expected to deliver its verdict in the case on Thursday.
Seven accused, including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, have faced trial for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni are the other accused.
The NIA, which took over the probe from the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in 2011, has sought “commensurate punishment” for all the accused.
The trial began in 2018 after the court framed charges and concluded on April 19th, 2025, before the matter was reserved for judgment.
Six people were killed and more than 100 were injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon, about 200 kilometres from Mumbai, on September 29th, 2008.
In its final arguments, the NIA argued the blast was orchestrated to terrorise a section of the Muslim community, disrupt essential services, create communal tension, and threaten the state’s internal security.
The agency said “relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proved evidence” had “conclusively and cogently” established the circumstances to form a complete chain of events.
The NIA contended the accused were “directly involved in the part of a larger conspiracy hatched amongst themselves and (were) instrumental in causing a bomb explosion.”
The blast took place during the holy month of Ramzan and just before the Navratri festival. The NIA said the intention was to instil fear within the Muslim community.
The charges include UAPA sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act), and IPC sections 120(b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153(a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups).
During the trial, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses, with 37 turning hostile.
In her final statement, Thakur argued her implication in the case was “totally illegal, bad in law and contrary to the law of the land and with malafide intention and ulterior motive.”
Referring to testimony from Mohan Kulkarni, an ATS officer involved in the probe, Thakur said his statement “clearly shows she is an innocent person.” She further alleged she was “implicated in this case by manipulating evidence with a prejudiced mind as it was pre-decided to implicate her.”
Purohit also maintained there was “no material evidence” linking him to the offence.
“The prosecution’s case rests on fabricated and contradictory witness statements that are devoid of any independent corroboration and fail to meet the evidentiary threshold required in law,” his final arguments stated.
He claimed the investigation was “tainted by serious procedural irregularities and a complete disregard for standard legal protocols.” These lapses, he added, “not only vitiate the fairness of the proceedings but also render the prosecution’s case wholly speculative and unreliable.”
The other accused have made similar submissions.
An intervenor representing the victims contended the 2008 Malegaon blast case is “a classic example where the defence lacks a reasoned argument.”
“Some of the accused claim the bombing never happened, while others blame it on SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India). Each of the seven accused has advanced different and often conflicting defences which are contrary to each other’s claim, which itself strengthens the prosecution’s case,” the victims’ side said.
The NIA submitted it has established the involvement of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Follow us
