Two cases of bomb blasts.
Two judgments. And no justice.
The first: the Mumbai railway blasts of July 2006. The second: the Malegaon blasts of September 2008. The Mumbai blasts killed nearly 200 people and injured more than 800. The Malegaon explosions claimed six lives and left nearly 100 injured. Both cases have now ended in acquittals—crushing the hopes of families of victims and survivors and even the state itself.
In both trials, the courts pointed out serious investigative lapses. In the railway blasts case, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused, overturning a special court judgment that had awarded five death sentences and seven life imprisonments. The court said confessions were forced and witnesses were tutored.
A special bench of Justices Anil Kilore and Shyam Chandak of the Bombay High Court said the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses and accepted the claims of the accused that their confession statements were extracted under torture. The judges also noted that the handwritten statements of the accused showed identical responses—suggesting that they were dictated. “Even if it is presumed that a format of questions were used by them (interrogators) for their convenience, it cannot be ignored that the answers are identical [and] verbatim, which is highly improbable if not copied…,” the bench said.
In the Malegaon case, a special NIA court of Justice A.K. Lahoti said the prosecution’s evidence, while it had created “serious suspicion”, was not strong enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. All seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, were acquitted.
In August 2011, THE WEEK ran a cover story titled ‘Col Purohit: Hero or Villain?’, after accessing interrogation reports that did not have any substantive information tying Purohit to the blast. The report suggested that Purohit could be acquitted, as his actions were allegedly part of his duty to penetrate rising right-wing networks. The same issue also featured a story on how military intelligence officers were drifting dangerously close to extremist right-wing organisations.
The Malegaon case was first handled by Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) under Hemant Karkare, who was later killed in the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. Karkare did not hesitate to expose the right-wing extremist network active in Maharashtra and central India. In 2011, the National Investigation Agency took over the case. After the BJP came to power in 2014, the NIA reportedly asked then public prosecutor Rohini Salian to “go soft” on the accused, but Salian publicly exposed this pressure and resigned. She now lives in Mangaluru.
The ATS had claimed that RDX procured by Purohit during his posting in Jammu and Kashmir was used in the Malegaon blasts. But Judge Lahoti said there was no evidence regarding the source or transportation of the explosives. The judge also noted that the ATS and the NIA were at loggerheads regarding several crucial aspects. “As per the ATS, the [explosive] was fitted in the house of A-11 (Sudhakar Chaturvedi, an accused) by A-9 (Purohit) with the help of other accused. Whereas the NIA [says] it was fitted at Indore and brought to Malegaon from Sendhwa bus stand,” the court said.
The judge also pointed out that two Army officers had testified to having seen ATS inspector Shekhar Bagde behaving suspiciously at Chaturvedi’s house, raising the possibility of planted evidence.
The 1,036-page judgement also cast doubt on Purohit’s defence that he had joined the right-wing organisation Abhinav Bharat to collect intelligence and develop sources. “There is nothing on record to show that Purohit was ever permitted to join Abhinav Bharat as a member,” the court said.
It also noted that the Army authorities did not show any interest in protecting Purohit. Their inaction, the court said, reflected their assumption that the ATS actions were “proper”. The court also observed that there was no evidence to show that the allegations against Purohit were baseless. “Mere failure to prove the charges… doesn’t mean that the charges were baseless or without foundation,” it said.
A turning point came in 2016 when the NIA filed a supplementary charge-sheet dropping charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). Under MCOCA, confessional statements are accepted as evidence. After the NIA filed the supplementary charge-sheet, 38 witnesses turned hostile—many alleging that they were coerced into giving statements. The NIA even sought to drop charges against Pragya Thakur, citing lack of evidence.
A senior IPS officer who had served in Nashik when the Malegaon blasts happened said they had initially arrested and charge-sheeted SIMI (Students’ Islamic Movement of India) operatives, but they were later cleared. He alleged that the ATS investigation was flawed, and that they followed a questionable line of inquiry.
The role of the Maharashtra government has also come under scrutiny. In any major case, acquittals are considered setbacks to the prosecution that prompts the state government to file appeals. After the railway blasts verdict, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis expressed shock and promised to move the Supreme Court. But following the Malegaon acquittals, Fadnavis changed his tune. He said the Congress was selling the false narrative of “Hindu terror”, and demanded an apology from its leaders. “There never was Hindu terror, never is, and never will be,” he said.
The NIA, now led by senior IPS officer Sadanand Date, is also silent on whether it will appeal. “It is necessary to mention that the evidence on record creates grave suspicion against the accused,” the court had said. This should prompt the NIA to appeal against the judgment so that justice can be delivered.
Families have waited nearly two decades—through hearings, appeals and sleepless nights. As all accused in both blast cases walk free, a question is echoing through the lanes of Malegaon and the working-class neighbourhoods of Mumbai: who was responsible?
“He just went for tea. Ten hours later, he was gone,” recalls Usman Aynullah Khan, uncle of 22-year-old Irfan, who died in the Malegaon blasts. “His back was torn apart. We tried everything—we took him to Nashik, and then JJ Hospital in Mumbai. He didn’t survive. And now they say no one did it? This verdict has given us nothing but pain.”
Irfan was just one name among many. Sixteen-year-old Farheen Liyaquat had stepped out to buy pav for dinner. The blast struck just metres from her home. “I couldn’t even recognise her face,” her father, Shaikh Liyaqat Moinuddin, said. “My wife went to the hospital and came back numb. She said, ‘It’s Farheen.’ But it didn’t look like my daughter. Her face was gone.”
In Mumbai, Chirag Chauhan, who survived the 2006 blasts, spent years rebuilding his life after a spinal cord injury left him wheelchair-bound. “That attack cost me an entire phase of my life. Infections, surgeries, mental agony for the entire family—it’s a trauma I endure every living moment. It broke me mentally and physically; but at the same time, it gave me the grit to pull myself up and carry on,” he said. Chauhan was studying to become a chartered accountant. He is now a practising CA with a law degree.
Families said they were led to believe that there was enough evidence for convictions. But the verdicts in both cases have shown otherwise. “So who killed my daughter?” asked Moinuddin. “Who killed the others? How can this end with no one responsible?”
Mahendra Pitale, who lost his left arm in the 2006 blasts, said he was unmarried and living a solitary life. “Is this a joke the system is playing on us? Why is there no outrage over this utter failure to bring culprits to book?” he asked.
Said Nadeem Sheikh, who lost his brother in the Borivali blast: “We were told they had caught the culprits. That justice would be served. Now they say, ‘Sorry, wrong men.’ If they were innocent, fine. But who did it then?”
Nisar Ahmad, who lost his nephew Syed Azhar, said, “The Malegaon case began with Muslims being arrested and branded as terrorists. Then the narrative shifted to Hindu extremists. And now, even they are acquitted. So what does that mean—that no one killed our children?”
The anguish is mirrored by Ramesh Naik, who lost his daughter in the railway blasts. He pointed out that Ajmal Kasab was convicted four years after the 26/11 attacks, but the wait for justice in this case was not over even after 19 years. “Was this case not taken seriously by the authorities?” he asked.
Chauhan said it was time to go to the Supreme Court. The Kul Jamaat-ul-Tanzim, a federation of Muslim organisations in Malegaon, agreed. “This is not just about individual families. It’s about collective justice,” said a representative.
The failure in these cases has exposed systemic cracks in India’s justice system—shoddy investigations, coerced confessions, mishandling of evidence, and political interference. “The state cannot just move on,” said Bombay High Court lawyer Vasant Bansode. “We need judicial scrutiny. A writ petition for compensation and accountability must be filed. The state must explain how innocent men lost years in jail, and how the real culprits were never found.”
As the grief-stricken families of Malegaon and Mumbai gather to plan their next legal move, their voices rise in unison—not in rage, but in the unrelenting pain of their need to know: “Tell us who killed our loved ones.”