2006 Malegaon Blast Case: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges Against Last Four Hindu Accused, Leaves Case Without Trial-Ready Defendants.

This ultimately washes out the “saffron terror” charge as allegedly manufactured by the then Indian National Congress government.

Upendra Bharti | HENB | Mumbai | April 22, 2026:: Nearly two decades after one of Maharashtra’s deadliest terror attacks, the 2006 Malegaon blast case has reached an extraordinary legal impasse. On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court quashed charges against the last four remaining Hindu accused, effectively leaving the case without any individuals currently facing trial.

The blasts, which occurred on September 8, 2006, in Malegaon, killed 31 Muslim people and injured over 300 when explosive devices detonated near a mosque and cemetery. Despite multiple investigations and shifting theories over the years, the case has not resulted in a single conviction.

High Court Sets Aside Charges

A bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam C Chandak overturned a September 30, 2025 order of a special court that had framed charges against Manohar Narwaria, Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, and Lokesh Sharma.

The four had been charged under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including murder and criminal conspiracy, as well as under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The High Court allowed their appeals, finding sufficient grounds to interfere with the trial court’s decision.

This ruling halts the last active prosecution in a case that has seen multiple investigative shifts and prolonged delays.

A Case Marked by Contradictory Investigations

The investigation into the Malegaon blasts has passed through three major agencies:

• The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad initially arrested nine Muslim men shortly after the attack.
• The Central Bureau of Investigation, which took over in 2007, continued with the same line of investigation.
• In 2011, the National Investigation Agency reversed the earlier findings, declaring the original accused innocent and instead implicating a group of alleged Hindu right-wing activists.

This shift was largely based on a statement made by Swami Aseemanand in 2010, in which he reportedly claimed that RSS activist Sunil Joshi had told him the attack was carried out by his associates.

Controversy Over Confession

However, Aseemanand later retracted his statement, alleging it had been obtained under coercion. Courts in other blast cases—including those related to the Samjhauta Express, Mecca Masjid, and Ajmer Sharif—found the confession unreliable and acquitted him.

The defense for the four accused argued that there was no eyewitness evidence linking their clients to the crime, and that a retracted and discredited confession could not form the basis for prosecution. The High Court had earlier stayed the trial in January while considering these arguments.

Years in Custody Without Trial

The four men were arrested in 2013 and spent six years in jail custody before being granted bail in 2019. At the time, the High Court had noted the prolonged incarceration without trial as a significant concern.

Meanwhile, the original nine accused were discharged in 2016. An appeal against their discharge, filed by the ATS, remains pending before the High Court and has not been heard since 2019.

The Fake ‘Saffron Terror’ Allegations

The shifting direction of the investigation had also triggered a wider political debate at the time. Leaders from the Indian National Congress, including Digvijaya Singh, Sushilkumar Shinde, and P. Chidambaram, had publicly referred to the concept of “saffron terror” or “Hindu extremism” in the context of certain investigations during their tenure at the Centre. These remarks became politically contentious. Following the High Court’s recent order in the Malegaon case, several critics and commentators have argued that the outcome undermines that “Saffron Terrorism” narrative and have accused the then government of politicising terror investigations to target Hindu individuals and organisations.

Legal and Political Implications

The High Court’s latest ruling creates an unusual legal situation: both the original accused and the subsequently named accused have now been cleared at the trial stage, leaving the case without active defendants.

Some individuals associated with the case, including Swami Aseemanand, have alleged in public forums that investigative shifts were influenced by political motives, including attempts to construct a narrative of “saffron terrorism.” These claims remain contested and have not been judicially established.

Related Developments

The verdict also comes less than a year after a special NIA court acquitted all seven accused in the separate 2008 Malegaon blast case, including Pragya Singh Thakur and Prasad Purohit, citing lack of sufficient evidence.

What Lies Ahead

While Wednesday’s ruling significantly weakens the prosecution’s position in the 2006 case, the pending appeal regarding the discharge of the original accused leaves a narrow legal window open. Until that matter is resolved, the case remains technically unresolved—but without any accused currently facing trial.

The outcome underscores longstanding concerns about investigative inconsistencies, evidentiary standards, and delays in India’s terror-related prosecutions.

The order of Bombay High Court ultimately washes out the “saffron terror” charge as allegedly manufactured by the then Indian National Congress government. Then who perpetrated the Malegaon blasts in 2006 and 2008, one after another? The question remains unanswered.
….
_Agency Inputs.