Malegaon blast case hits dead end, HC discharges 4, raps NIA over probe lapses

The Bombay High Court discharged four accused in the 2006 Malegaon blasts case, citing lack of evidence and faulting the National Investigation Agency for ignoring earlier findings, leaving the case unresolved

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has discharged four accused in the 2006 Malegaon blasts case, observing that the investigation “seems to have reached a dead end” and raising serious concerns over the handling of the probe.

A bench led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar set aside a 2025 special court order framing charges against Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, Manohar Ram Singh Narwaria and Lokesh Sharma, citing insufficient evidence to proceed with trial.

The court also criticised the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for “completely ignoring” evidence gathered by the earlier probe led by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which had pointed to a different set of accused.

The blasts on September 8, 2006, in Malegaon town of Maharashtra’s Nashik district killed 31 people and injured over 300, with explosions reported near a mosque and cemetery following Friday prayers.

In its judgment, the high court noted that the case had been marred by “diagonally opposite” versions from investigating agencies, with the ATS initially attributing the conspiracy to a group of Muslim men, while the NIA later alleged the involvement of right-wing extremists.

“The case seems to have reached a dead end,” the court said, adding that the contradictory narratives “cannot be reconciled by any stretch of imagination.”

The bench held that the trial court had failed to apply its mind while framing charges and overlooked inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution’s case.

It further said there was no justification for disregarding evidence collected by the ATS and the CBI, including forensic findings indicating the presence of RDX at the blast site and locations linked to earlier accused.

The court pointed out that the case against the four discharged individuals relied largely on circumstantial evidence, retracted confessional statements and hearsay claims, with no eyewitness testimony linking them directly to the blasts.

Questioning the NIA’s approach, the bench said it was “a mystery” why no fresh material had been collected and criticised its reliance on a retracted statement by Swami Aseemanand to build an alternative theory.

The agency had earlier given a clean chit to nine Muslim men arrested in the initial phase of the investigation, who were discharged by a special court in 2016—a decision currently under challenge in the high court.

The judgment leaves unresolved the question of who was responsible for one of Maharashtra’s deadliest terror attacks, highlighting deep flaws and inconsistencies in the multi-agency investigation that has unfolded over nearly two decades.