Malegaon Blast Case Verdict: Court Acquits All 7 Accused After 17-Year Legal Battle
In a landmark decision that reignites debates about India’s counterterrorism investigations, a special NIA court acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case on July 31, including BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and retired Army officer Lt Col Prasad Purohit. The ruling cited a lack of credible evidence and “serious shortcomings” in the probe, ending a 17-year legal saga marked by political clashes and communal tensions.
A Legal Marathon Full of Potholes
Judge A.K. Lahoti’s verdict highlighted critical gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the failure to prove the accused procured or planted RDX explosives. The September 29, 2008 blast near Malegaon’s Bhikku Chowk mosque killed six people and injured over 100. Retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, among the acquitted, had earlier told reporters the case was “false and fabricated,” claiming witnesses faced intimidation during initial investigations.
Source: Pexels Image
Why This Acquittal Matters
- Political Repercussions: Sadhvi Pragya—a BJP parliamentarian since 2019—had faced terrorism charges, making her election controversial.
- Security Agency Scrutiny: The court’s criticism of mishandled evidence raises questions about investigative protocols.
- Victim Concerns: Families of victims, mostly Muslim, have long alleged bias in handling Hindu extremist-linked terror cases.
A Tangle of Justice and Politics
While supporters celebrated the verdict as a triumph over “false charges,” critics argue it reflects systemic flaws in India’s counterterror framework. Security experts warn the ruling could complicate future cases involving religious extremism. With the NIA yet to comment, the case leaves a pressing question: When investigations span decades and political currents shift, can justice remain blind—or does it risk becoming myopic?
