17 Years Since Deadly 2008 Malegaon blast: Here’s A Timeline of The Longest-Running Trial

New Delhi: Seventeen years after a powerful bomb blast shattered lives in Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra, the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai is set to pronounce its much-awaited verdict today. The blast, which killed six and injured over a hundred on the night of September 29, 2008, has since become one of India's most politically charged and legally complex terror cases.

This long and twisted legal journey, involving controversial arrests, retracted confessions, dropped charges, and allegations of torture, has spanned nearly two decades and undergone major shifts in investigative narratives. As judgment day arrives, here’s a comprehensive explainer of everything that led to this moment.

The Blast and Immediate Aftermath

On the night of September 29, 2008, a low-intensity explosive device planted on a motorcycle detonated near Bhikku Chowk, a bustling area in Malegaon. The explosion claimed six lives and left more than a hundred injured. The incident triggered widespread panic and fear, especially given Malegaon's history of communal tension.

The motorcycle used in the attack was traced back to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, a former BJP MP. This revelation marked a dramatic turn in the investigation, which was being handled at the time by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).

ATS Investigation: A Shift in India’s Terror Narrative

The ATS, under the leadership of the late Hemant Karkare, began an investigation that would fundamentally alter the landscape of terror discourse in India. Until then, investigations into such attacks had primarily focused on Islamic terror outfits. But this time, for the first time in India’s counter-terrorism history, the needle of suspicion pointed toward individuals affiliated with Hindu right-wing groups.

Among those arrested were Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, whose motorcycle was allegedly used in the blast, and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, a serving officer in military intelligence. The ATS claimed that both were key members of a radical organisation named Abhinav Bharat, which allegedly conspired to carry out retaliatory attacks targeting Muslim-majority areas. The ATS also accused Purohit of procuring explosives and offering logistical and ideological support for the plan.

According to the ATS, meetings had taken place in Bhopal, Faridabad, and other cities, during which the idea of establishing a "Hindu Rashtra" and launching attacks was discussed. Statements from co-accused and other witnesses suggested that this was part of a broader plan by Abhinav Bharat to respond to prior terrorist attacks with violence of their own.

These developments led to the emergence of the politically volatile phrase “Hindu terror” or “saffron terror”, triggering furious political debates across the country.

Controversies and Claims of Fabrication

From the outset, the investigation was mired in controversy. Defence lawyers claimed that the ATS fabricated evidence, filed charges without any credible proof, and tortured the accused to extract confessions. JP Mishra, counsel for Sadhvi Pragya, said that the ATS invoked MCOCA, the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, without proper justification and built a narrative around political propaganda.

"The ATS planted evidence against Sadhvi Pragya Thakur and the other accused because they couldn’t find any real evidence. MCOCA was slapped without any basis, and accused were tortured. They fabricated evidence to prove their propaganda of ‘saffron terror’. We are certain truth will prevail and my client will be acquitted," Mishra had stated.

The NIA Takes Over

In April 2011, the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which re-registered the offence and began its own probe. In 2016, the NIA filed a supplementary chargesheet, dropping the stringent MCOCA charges filed by the ATS and exonerating several individuals due to a lack of prosecutable evidence. It found serious loopholes in the ATS’s case and pointed out that many accused had faced custodial torture.

However, the NIA retained the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The agency argued that Abhinav Bharat had played a central role in planning the Malegaon attack and that key accused like Pragya Thakur and Purohit remained complicit, despite some of the earlier evidence being unreliable or withdrawn.

In its investigation, the NIA presented over 1,300 pages of written arguments, backed by forensic reports, call data records, and witness statements. Despite this, the agency itself had earlier tried to discharge Sadhvi Pragya, but the special court ruled that there was prima facie evidence against her and directed the trial to proceed.

Defence’s Argument: “A Framed Case”

The defence for all seven accused painted a unified picture: the case was politically motivated and riddled with inconsistencies.

Sadhvi Pragya’s team argued that she had not used the motorcycle in months, and it had been in someone else’s possession. Lt Col Purohit’s lawyers maintained that he was working undercover to infiltrate extremist circles, including Abhinav Bharat, and had kept his superiors informed throughout. They alleged that the RDX traces were planted and the evidence against Purohit was completely fabricated.

Sameer Kulkarni, one of the accused, said, “Truth will be out on July 31. The case collapsed after the NIA took over, many witnesses turned hostile, and many accused were also discharged. We hope top cops who misused their power to frame us will be punished.”

Another accused, Ramesh Upadhyay, claimed, “The investigation done by various agencies is totally fraudulent and false. We were tortured in police custody by the ATS, and witnesses were also tortured to implicate us. The witnesses later retracted their statements taken under coercion.”

In total, nearly 40 witnesses turned hostile during the proceedings, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case.

The Trial: A Legal Marathon

The Malegaon blast trial has been one of the longest-running terror cases in the country. Here are the key statistics:

• 323 prosecution witnesses and 8 defence witnesses were examined.
• 10,800 exhibits were submitted.
• 404 articles were seized as part of the investigation.
• The trial spanned five different NIA judges.
• Final arguments concluded in April 2025, with written submissions running over 1,300 pages.

The verdict was reserved on April 19, 2025.

Key Accused Who Faced Trial

Seven individuals ultimately stood trial:

1. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur – Former BJP MP
2. Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit (Retd) – Former military intelligence officer
3. Major Ramesh Upadhyay (Retd)
4. Ajay Rahirkar
5. Sameer Kulkarni
6. Sudhakar Chaturvedi
7. Sudhakar Dwivedi

All are currently out on bail.

Others Discharged or Untraced

Over the years, several accused were either discharged or never traced:

• Discharged: Shivji Kalsangra, Shyamlal Sahu, and Pravin Mutalik
• Untraced: Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange

Charges Framed

The accused were charged under several serious provisions:

• UAPA: Section 16 (committing a terrorist act), Section 18 (conspiracy)
• IPC: Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 302 (murder), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 324 (causing hurt), Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups)

Timeline of Key Events

• Sept 29, 2008: Blast kills 6 in Malegaon
• Oct–Nov 2008: ATS arrests Sadhvi Pragya and Purohit
• Jan 2009: ATS files first chargesheet
• Nov 2008: Hemant Karkare, who led the ATS probe, is killed in 26/11 Mumbai attacks
• Dec 2010: Case transferred to NIA
• 2016: NIA files supplementary chargesheet
• 2017: MCOCA dropped; Pragya and Purohit granted bail
• Oct 2018: Trial begins
• Sept 2023: Evidence hearing concludes
• April 2025: Final arguments conclude; verdict reserved
• July 31, 2025: Verdict day

Unanswered Questions That Still Haunt the Case

Even after 17 years, several troubling questions remain:

• Was the case politically scripted from the beginning?
• Why did so many witnesses recant their testimonies?
• Were confessions extracted under threat or torture?
• Did investigators bypass forensic and legal protocols?
• Was there an agenda behind framing Army officers?
• Who constructed and benefited from the "saffron terror" narrative?

What Lies Ahead

As Judge A.K. Lahoti of the Special NIA Court in Mumbai prepares to deliver his verdict today, the outcome is expected to have far-reaching consequences, not only for the seven accused but also for the credibility of India’s terror investigations, political narratives, and justice system.

Whichever way the judgment swings, this case will remain a reference point in India’s legal and political history, an example of how law, ideology, and power often collide in the courtroom.