Pragya Thakur and Ex-Army Officer Shrikant Purohit Acquitted in 2008 Malegaon Blast Case

After nearly 17 years of judicial proceedings, the Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai delivered its final verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case on July 31, 2025. All seven accused, including high-profile individuals such as Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, a former BJP Member of Parliament from Bhopal, and Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, an Army officer, were acquitted of all charges.

The case revolved around a deadly explosion that took place on September 29, 2008, in Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. The blast occurred during the Islamic holy month of Ramzan and just before the Navratri festival. It killed six people and injured more than 100 others, creating widespread fear and sparking intense communal and political reactions across India.

The Special NIA court, presided over by Judge A K Lahoti, stated in its judgment that the prosecution failed to establish conclusive evidence against the accused. As a result, all of them were granted the benefit of the doubt and were acquitted of charges filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Arms Act, and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The seven individuals put on trial were:

1. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur – former BJP MP

2. Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit – Army officer, Military Intelligence

3. Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay

4. Ajay Rahirkar

5. Sudhakar Dwivedi

6. Sudhakar Chaturvedi

7. Sameer Kulkarni

Sadhvi Pragya was arrested in October 2008 after investigators found that the motorcycle used in the explosion was registered in her name. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) accused her of being involved in a conspiracy to target Muslim-majority areas as a retaliation for earlier terror attacks. She was one of the earliest and most controversial arrests in the case and spent several years in jail before being granted bail.

Lt Col Purohit, who was serving in the Indian Army at the time, was accused of having links with Abhinav Bharat, a radical Hindu nationalist organization. According to the prosecution, he facilitated secret meetings, helped procure explosives, and played a key role in planning the attack. However, during the trial, his defense argued that he was working covertly to infiltrate extremist groups for intelligence gathering, a claim that weakened the prosecution’s case over time.

Over the years, the case saw multiple turns, including changes in investigation teams—from Maharashtra ATS to NIA—and allegations of political interference. Despite the serious nature of the charges, no conclusive evidence such as forensic reports, eyewitness accounts, or digital records were deemed sufficient by the court to support the prosecution’s claims.

The verdict has generated sharp reactions from various quarters. Supporters of the accused hailed it as a victory of truth, while critics and families of the victims expressed disappointment, alleging that justice had not been served.

The Malegaon blast case has been one of the most politically and communally sensitive cases in India’s counterterrorism landscape, and the court’s verdict marks a significant chapter in its long legal journey.