Malegaon Blast Verdict: NIA Court Decision Imminent as Accused Plead Innocence

Mumbai, Jul 30 (PTI) - Seventeen years after a devastating blast in Malegaon, Maharashtra left six dead and over 100 injured, a special NIA court is set to deliver its verdict this Thursday. The accused include BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, who face charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. The other accused are Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has requested appropriate punishment for the accused following an investigation suggesting their involvement.

The trial commenced in 2018 and concluded on April 19, 2025, with judgement reserved. The blast transpired on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Malegaon, approximately 200 km from Mumbai, during the holy month of Ramzan and just before the Navratri festival. The NIA’s final arguments assert that the blast was orchestrated by conspirators aiming to terrorize the Muslim community and incite communal tensions. Based on evidence considered relevant and reliable, the NIA claims to have established a comprehensive chain of events linking the accused to the larger conspiracy and explosion.

Initially investigated by Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), the NIA took over in 2011. Charges framed against the seven accused include UAPA sections for committing and conspiring terror acts, along with various IPC sections, noting crimes such as criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity between religious groups. The prosecution presented 323 witnesses, with 37 turning hostile.

In her final statement, Thakur argued her implication in the case was improper, motivated by malafide intentions. She referenced Mohan Kulkarni, an ATS officer, whose testimony she claims supports her innocence. Meanwhile, Purohit contests the evidence linking him to the offense, labeling the prosecution’s case as based on inconsistent and unverified witness statements. He criticized the investigation, citing procedural irregularities undermining its fairness.

The remaining accused expressed similar arguments. The intervenor representing victims highlighted contradictions in the defenses of the accused, which they argue bolsters the prosecution’s case. They criticized some accused for denying the bombing or shifting blame to SIMI, offering conflicting defenses. The prosecuting agency, NIA, insists it has proven the involvement of all accused beyond reasonable doubt.

(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)