- By Nidhi Giri
- Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:32 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
While acquitting all the seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and former Army officer Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit in the Malegaon Blast 2008 case, the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai stated that terrorism has no religion and it cannot convict anyone merely on perception and moral evidence. The court further said that Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot be invoked as sanction was not taken as per rules. The court observed that both the sanction orders of the UAPA in the case were defective.
On September 29, 2008, six people were killed and several others injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon City, Nashik. The judgment comes nearly 17 years after the incident.
ALSO READ: ‘They Left Me Bleeding’: Indian-Origin Man Brutally Attacked In Ireland, Suffers Fractured Cheekbone
What Special NIA Court Observed
-UAPA will not be invoked in this case as sanction was not taken as per rules. Both the sanction orders of the UAPA in the case are defective.
-Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon, but failed to prove that a bomb was placed in that motorcycle. The court has come to the conclusion that the injured people were not 101 but 95 only, and there was manipulation in some medical certificates.
-Though RDX was brought and used in the allegation, there is no evidence of storage of RDX in Lt Colonel Purohit's house and no evidence to show he assembled it.
-Terrorism has no religion because no religion can advocate violence. The Court cannot convict anyone merely on perception and moral evidence; there has to be cogent evidence.
-There is no evidence of storing or assembling the explosives in Shrikant Prasad Purohit's residence. No sketch of the spot was done by the investigation officer while doing the panchnama. No fingerprint, dump data or anything else was collected for the spot. The samples were contaminated, so the reports can’t be conclusive and are not reliable. The bike allegedly involved in the blast did not have a clear chassis number. Prosecution could not prove that it was in Sadhvi Pragya’s possession immediately before the blast.