Hyderabad: Asaduddin Owaisi, the chief of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), has strongly criticized the Bombay High Court’s decision to discharge four men accused in the 2006 Malegaon blasts case. He termed the ruling a “betrayal” of the victims and raised serious questions about the investigation conducted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Owaisi highlighted that the blasts, which killed 31 people and injured 312, specifically targeted Muslims. He expressed concerns over the direction of the investigation. “The accused all allegedly belonged to Abhinav Bharat. The explosions claimed 31 lives and injured 312. The blasts specifically targeted Muslims. Yet, maybe out of habit, the investigation agencies first arrested nine Muslims, who were eventually acquitted in 2016. In yesterday’s order, the High Court criticized the NIA for its botched investigation,” Owaisi said in a post on X.
He further questioned whether the NIA would challenge the verdict. “Is the NIA going to appeal the order before the Supreme Court? Highly unlikely. This is a betrayal of all the victims and their families. This will be yet another terror attack where we will not even see its perpetrators being punished. To be a Muslim in India is to only wait for justice,” he added.
Owaisi also referenced earlier terror cases, alleging a recurring pattern in the way investigations have been conducted. “This case has followed a similar trajectory to the 2008 blasts case. Rohini Salian, NIA’s prosecutor, was on record saying that NIA asked her to go soft on the accused,” he further wrote.
Family members of victims of the 2008 Malegaon blast had moved the Bombay High Court on September 9, 2025, challenging the special NIA court’s verdict that acquitted all the accused, including Pragya Singh Thakur and Prasad Purohit. The blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Malegaon town of Nashik district, Maharashtra, killed six people and injured 101 others. The High Court listed the matter for hearing on September 9, 2025, before a division bench comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice R.R. Bhosale.
The appeal, filed by six family members of the deceased victims, claims that the special court’s judgment was flawed and seeks to overturn the acquittal. They argued that the investigation was faulty and that the prosecution’s case was weakened by the NIA’s handling of the probe. The special court’s conclusion that there was no cogent evidence to warrant a conviction is disputed by the victims’ families, who argue that conspiracy cases often rely on circumstantial evidence.
The victims’ families also raised concerns about the NIA’s special public prosecutor, alleging pressure to slow down proceedings against the accused. In their appeal, they claimed the investigation had been compromised and that crucial evidence was either ignored or mishandled. Representing the families of six deceased victims, the petitioners urged the court to issue notices to all respondents, including those acquitted. Meanwhile, the NIA, which prosecuted the case, had not yet filed an appeal.
The 2008 Malegaon blast case was transferred to the NIA in 2011 from the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). After a 17-year-long trial and the examination of hundreds of witnesses, a special NIA court acquitted all seven accused of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Arms Act, and other provisions. The court examined 323 prosecution witnesses and eight defence witnesses before pronouncing the verdict. “Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon but failed to prove that the bomb was placed in that motorcycle,” Judge Abhay Lohati said. The court also noted some manipulation of medical certificates, concluding that the injured were 95, not 101. The court stated there was no evidence of storing or assembling explosives at Prasad Purohit’s residence. “No search of the spot was done by the investigating officer while doing the panchnama. No fingerprint, dump data or anything was collected from the spot. The samples were contaminated, so reports can’t be conclusive and relied upon,” the court said. On the alleged role of the Abhinav Bharat organization, the court said there was no evidence of funds being used for terror activities.
