Malegaon Blast Verdict 2025: All Accused Acquitted Including Sadhvi Pragya

A special NIA court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused, including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case—citing lack of reliable evidence, judicial scrutiny on ATS/NIA procedures, and procedural lapses.

On July 31, 2025, a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Mumbai formally acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, a former BJP MP, and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. After nearly 17 years of legal proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and multiple IPC charges, the court cited insufficient, unreliable and inconclusive evidence as the basis for the verdict.

Background of the Malegaon Blast Incident

The 2008 Blast Incident

On September 29, 2008, during Ramadan, an explosive device detonated near Bhikku Chowk and Anjuman Chowk in Malegaon, Maharashtra, killing six people and injuring approximately 95. The timing raised suspicions of communal motive, given the proximity to the Muslim holy month and the upcoming Navratri festival.

Investigation and Initial Accusations

The probe began with the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which claimed that the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Pragya Thakur and alleged Lt Col Purohit procured explosives from Kashmir. These claims formed the basis for charges under UAPA and IPC.

Court’s Verdict & Key Observations

Acquittal of All Accused

A Special NIA Court, presided by Judge A.K. Lahoti, acquitted all seven accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. Notably, the court stated:

“Terrorism has no religion… conviction cannot be based on moral or public perception.”

No Proven Ownership of Motorcycle

The court rejected claims that Pragya Thakur owned the motorcycle in question—citing erased chassis numbers and no cogent evidence linking her to the vehicle. Further, she had purportedly renounced material possessions two years prior to the blast.

Procedural and Evidential Lapses

Key findings of the court include:

The UAPA sanction orders were defective, rendering invocation invalid.
Lack of conclusive forensic or witness-based evidence tying accused to the bomb.
Contamination of the crime scene due to poor barricading.
Discrepancies in injury figures—finding 95 victims, not 101.
No proof that Purohit stored or transported RDX.

Compensation Ruling

The court directed the government to provide ₹2 lakh to families of deceased victims, and ₹50,000 to each injured person, for the failings in investigation and prosecution.

Profiles of the Key Accused

Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur

A former member of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, arrested in 2008, tried under multiple IPC and UAPA charges. She consistently maintained her innocence and later transitioned into politics, winning the Bhopal Lok Sabha seat in 2019.

Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit

Former military intelligence officer accused of procuring explosives and facilitating conspiracy. The court rejected claims of involvement due to lack of evidence.

And similarly for Major Ramesh Upadhyay (Retd.), Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sudhakar Dhardwivedi, who were all cleared for the same reasons.

Legal and Investigative Repercussions

Critique of ATS vs NIA Charges

The judgment underscored discrepancies between ATS’s early charges and NIA findings. Witness testimonies flagged by SC and Bombay HC as coerced, flawed or inconsistent. The motorcycle evidence and RDX allegations were especially scrutinized.

Judicial Commentary

Judge Lahoti emphasised that “guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt” and mere suspicion is insufficient. He reiterated the constitutional principle that evidence must be reliable and lawful.

Political & Public Reactions

Pragya Thakur’s Statement

She declared the verdict a victory for “Bhagwa”—asserting that the case destroyed her life and that she had been unjustly targeted for political motives.

Opposition & Civil Society Views

Leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi termed the verdict “disappointing,” accusing state agencies of communal bias. Victim families are preparing to challenge the acquittal in higher courts.

Judicial System and ATS Scrutiny

The case adds to broader scrutiny of ATS investigations, raising questions over witness coercion, planted evidence, and politicisation in terror probes. Similar judicial corrections occurred in earlier cases like the 2006 Malegaon bombing.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What led to the acquittal in the Malegaon blast case?

A special NIA court acquitted all seven accused due to lack of reliable evidence, defective UAPA sanction orders, poor forensic linkages, and procedural lapses.

2. Were Sadhvi Pragya or Lt Col Purohit proven guilty?

No. The court found no credible proof that Pragya owned the motorcycle allegedly used, and dismissed all allegations against Purohit due to insufficient evidence.

3. Is the case closed after the acquittal?

Legally, yes. However, victim families may file appeals, and political and investigatory scrutiny continues.

4. What did the court say about the UAPA charges?

The court ruled that the UAPA sanction orders were legally defective, invalidating the terror-related allegations—making it impossible to uphold UAPA-based crimes.

5. Will there be compensation for victims?

Yes. The court directed compensation of ₹2 lakh for families of those killed and ₹50,000 each for injured survivors by the government.

Helpful Resources

Latest Posts

Here are five relevant prior posts on NuePlanet.com for deeper context:

Conclusion

The Malegaon blast acquittal is a landmark legal moment—marked by the court’s insistence on reliable evidence over speculative narrative. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and co-accused were cleared, not due to innocence in the moral sense, but because the state failed to prove wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt. The verdict raises critical questions about investigative integrity, political implications, and the toll of prolonged trials on individuals’ lives.

While the judicial chapter concludes here, the social and political discourse continues—forcing policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and civil society to reassess legal frameworks and trust in the justice system.