Malegaon bomb blast case explained: What were the charges against Sadhvi Pragya and why the court acquitted all accused

A seventeen year hiatus came to an end on Thursday when a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court pronounced its judgment in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.

Special NIA Judge A K Lahoti acquitted all seven accused in the said case including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, both of whom were among the first individuals to be linked to what was later labelled by some as "saffron terror."

Here’s a detailed explainer of the case, the charges, the investigation, and how the court finally ruled:

What is the case and what happened on September 29, 2008?

The case pertains to a bomb explosion that took place on September 29, 2008, in Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra's Nashik district.

On the said evening an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon. The explosion occurred just after evening prayers during the month of Ramzan, killing six people and injuring over 100. The blast caused chaos in the area and was widely seen as a deliberate attempt to incite communal tensions.

Also Read: Malegaon blast case- Court acquits all seven accused including Sadhvi Pragya and Lt Col Purohit

It sent shockwaves through the country and sparked intense political and legal scrutiny. The trial, which began in 2018 and concluded earlier this year, had drawn national attention due to the nature of the allegations, the profile of the accused, and the prolonged delays in prosecution.

How did the investigation begin in the Malegaon Bomb Blast Case?

The probe was initially led by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). In its early stages, the ATS focused on various possible angles, including the role of radical groups. The investigation took a significant turn when the ATS arrested a group of individuals allegedly linked to right-wing organisations.

Among them were Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, and others.

The ATS claimed the motorcycle used in the blast was registered in Pragya Thakur’s name. It further alleged that the accused were part of a conspiracy to target the Muslim community and create unrest.

What were the charges?

The seven accused – Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni – were charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. These included:

• Section 16 (committing a terrorist act)
• Section 18 (conspiracy to commit a terrorist act) of the UAPA
• Section 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 153A (promoting enmity between groups) of the IPC

Why was the case transferred to the NIA?

In 2011, the probe was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The shift in agencies marked a turning point in the trajectory of the case. In 2015, special public prosecutor Rohini Salian alleged that she was directed by NIA officials to “go soft” on the accused. This led to her being dropped from the case and the prosecution team being replaced.

Subsequently, in its 2016 supplementary chargesheet, the NIA contradicted several key ATS findings. It accused the ATS of planting RDX traces to implicate Lt Col Purohit and dropped charges against several accused, including Pragya Thakur, citing lack of prosecutable evidence. However, the NIA court in 2017 overruled the agency's clean chit and ordered that all seven accused would face trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Charges under MCOCA were dropped but those under UAPA and IPC, including murder and conspiracy, were retained.

What happened during the trial?

The trial formally began in 2018, a full decade after the blast. During the proceedings, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses. However, 37 of them turned hostile. The defence raised serious concerns over the credibility of the evidence and claimed there were contradictions in witness statements.

In her final statement, Pragya Thakur said 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.” She cited the testimony of ATS officer Mohan Kulkarni, who, according to her, “clearly shows she is an innocent person.”

Purohit argued there was “no material evidence” linking him to the crime. He submitted that the prosecution's case was “based on fabricated and contradictory witness statements” and claimed the investigation had “serious procedural irregularities” that “render the prosecution's case wholly speculative and unreliable.”

The victims' counsel, however, maintained that “each of the seven accused has advanced different and often conflicting defences which are contrary to each other’s claim which itself strengthens the case of prosecution.”

Why did the NIA court acquit all accused?

Special Judge A K Lahoti, presiding over the NIA court in Mumbai, acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case on Thursday, stating that there was “no reliable and cogent evidence” to convict any of them.

In the verdict, the court said that “mere suspicion cannot take the place of real proof” and underlined that in the absence of solid evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

The court also said, “The overall evidence does not inspire confidence in the court to convict the accused.”

On the question of motive and the religious angle, the judge stated that “no religion teaches violence,” and added, “Terrorism has no religion, but the court cannot convict on mere perception.”

The court ruled that the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were not applicable in this case. It also observed that it was not proven that the motorcycle used in the blast was registered in Pragya Singh Thakur’s name, nor was it established that the explosive was planted on that vehicle.