The recent acquittal of the four accused raises questions about probe failures, as victims’ families seek answers and justice from agencies and courts
NEW DELHI — Nearly two decades after the 2006 bomb blasts in Malegaon, which killed 37 people and injured more than 300, fresh questions have emerged after a recent court ruling that acquitted the accused and criticised the investigation process.
The case relates to explosions that took place on 8 September 2006 near a mosque in Malegaon in Maharashtra, during a time when people had gathered in large numbers. The attack caused heavy loss of life and left many families shattered.
In its recent order, the Bombay High Court acquitted the last four accused and raised serious concerns about the investigation carried out by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The court described parts of the probe as unreliable and questioned the manner in which the case was handled over the years.
The case has seen multiple investigations. Initially, the probe was conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which claimed that a group of nine Muslims linked to a banned organisation was responsible for the blasts. According to that version, the accused had received training abroad and used bicycles fitted with explosives to carry out the attack.
Later, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the case and supported the earlier findings. However, the direction of the investigation changed when the NIA was assigned the case in 2011.
During its probe, the NIA re-examined witnesses and accused persons. Several of them withdrew their earlier statements and alleged that they were forced to confess during the initial investigation. Based on these developments, a special court acquitted the earlier accused in 2016.
The NIA then pursued a different line of investigation and presented a new theory, naming other individuals as suspects. This version relied in part on statements recorded later, including a confession linked to another case.
However, the high court bench, led by Alok Aradhe and Shyam Chandak, questioned this approach. The court pointed out that the agency’s later findings were very different from earlier investigations and were largely based on statements that had changed over time.
The judges noted inconsistencies in the case. In one instance, a person earlier described as directly involved in planting explosives was later said to be hundreds of kilometres away on the day of the attack. The court said such contradictions weakened the case.
The bench also observed that relying only on statements that had been withdrawn was not enough to continue prosecution. It added that repeated changes in witness statements reduced their credibility.
As a result, the court found that there was not enough reliable evidence to proceed against the four accused and set aside earlier orders framing charges.
The verdict has led to strong reactions, especially from the families of the victims. Some said they feel let down after waiting for years. One relative of a victim said, “We have waited for justice for so long. Now we do not know who was responsible or what really happened.”
Legal experts say the case highlights serious concerns about how complex terror investigations are conducted and the need for strong, consistent evidence.
The Malegaon blasts remain one of the most painful incidents for many families, and despite years of investigation by multiple agencies, the question of who carried out the attack continues to trouble those affected.
