Six Muslims were killed in the 2008 explosion near a mosque. The trial has witnessed years of delay, legal hurdles, and political interference
NEW DELHI — It has been a painful and frustrating wait of 17-year wait for the families of the victims of the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast. Now, their hopes for justice rest on a verdict expected to be delivered on 8 May by a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court. The case, filled with twists, political interference, and a slow-moving legal process, has posed serious questions over the treatment of Muslim victims and the protection given to Hindutva-linked accused.
On 29 September 2008, a powerful blast occurred near a mosque in the Muslim-majority town of Malegaon in Nashik district, Maharashtra. A motorcycle packed with explosives was used to target worshippers returning from evening prayers during the holy month of Ramadan. Six Muslims lost their lives on the spot, while more than 100 others, including children and elderly men, were injured.
A victim’s son, 26-year-old Aamir Qureshi, who was only 9 when he lost his father in the blast, said, “My father went to the mosque and never returned. We waited all these years to hear the court say this was a crime and not an accident. We want justice, not sympathy.”
The initial investigation by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) pointed to a radical Hindutva angle—a claim that shocked many at the time. Until then, most bomb blasts were quickly blamed on Muslim groups. But this case exposed a different reality, one that many refused to see.
In 2011, the investigation was handed over to the NIA. Over the years, the agency examined 323 witnesses. Of them, 34 turned hostile, many allegedly under political pressure. “Why did witnesses turn away? Who scared them? This delay is not just legal—it’s political,” said local activist Aslam Sheikh, who has been helping victim families with legal support.
The case saw serious changes once the NIA took over. In 2016, the agency filed a charge sheet giving a clean chit to several accused, including Pragya Singh Thakur—who later on became a BJP Lok Sabha member. Three others—Shyam Sahu, Praveen Takalki and Shivnarayan Kalsangra—were also cleared. Yet, the same NIA maintained that Pragya Thakur must face trial, creating confusion and criticism.
Observers and legal experts raised concerns about political interference. “When the accused are linked to groups that share ideology with the ruling party, it’s not surprising that investigations go slow or change direction,” said lawyer Abdul Qayyum Ansari, who has followed the case closely.
The accused still facing trial include Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Pragya Singh Thakur, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni. All of them face charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The victims’ families say that justice delayed has been justice denied. “We buried our children. Now we want justice, not politics,” said Shabana Bano, whose 12-year-old nephew died in the explosion. “Why did it take 17 years? Had it been someone from the majority community, would it have taken so long?”
The Muslim community in Malegaon and beyond long believed that this case was treated with carelessness and suspicion. Many say that if the accused were from a Muslim background, they would have been labelled as terrorists immediately and given harsh punishment. Instead, the Malegaon blast accused were often treated gently by media and authorities alike.
On Saturday (19 April) the special NIA court completed the final hearing. Prosecution and defence both concluded their arguments. The court reserved its judgment after the prosecution submitted written arguments. Special Judge A K Lahoti announced that the verdict would be delivered on 8 May.
“It has been a long battle, and we hope the court will recognise the pain, the trauma and the truth,” said public prosecutor Avinash Rasal outside the court.
The Malegaon case has also exposed how the system treats crimes involving Hindutva groups. Several BJP leaders, including current ministers, openly supported the accused over the years. Pragya Thakur was not only given a clean chit initially, but also rewarded with a parliamentary seat. “This is the first case where the so-called ‘saffron terror’ came to public view,” said journalist Rehan Mujtaba, who covered the case extensively. “But instead of facing shame, the accused became heroes in the eyes of Hindutva forces.”
The NIA, meant to be an independent anti-terror agency, has been accused of softening the case. “We’ve seen how investigations were twisted. There were attempts to shift blame, slow down progress, and clean the names of powerful people,” said a retired IPS officer who asked not to be named.
Despite everything, the victims and their families are waiting for justice, hoping that the truth will not be buried under pressure and politics. “Seventeen years is too long. But if the guilty are punished, our wounds will begin to heal,” said 65-year-old Abdul Salam, whose son was seriously injured and still cannot walk properly.
The final judgment on 8 May will be more than a legal decision—it will be a test of the Indian judiciary’s commitment to justice for the marginalised.
