"Reached A Dead End": Bombay High Court Discharges Four Accused In Malegaon Blast Case Noticing Two Contradictory Stories By ATS & NIA
The Bench noted that there was no answer as to how the trial Judge dealt with the materials collected by the ATS implicating another set of accused persons.
The Bombay High Court has observed that the prosecution in the NIA Malegaon blast case “seems to have reached a dead end”, noting two contradictory narratives advanced by the Maharashtra ATS and the NIA. Holding that such mutually destructive versions cannot form the basis of a criminal trial, the Court set aside the order framing charges and discharged four accused, finding that the material on record failed to meet the threshold of “grave suspicion” required to proceed to trial.
While hearing appeals under Section 21 of the NIA Act challenging the order dated September 30, 2025 of the Special NIA Court, Mumbai, the Court observed that disclosure statements recorded in police custody, retracted confessions, and a delayed test identification parade did not constitute sufficient grounds for framing charges. It emphasised that even at the pre-trial stage, courts must ensure that the material discloses a prima facie case grounded in law, rather than merely reproducing the prosecution’s assertions.
Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam C. Chandak noting that the Special Judge overlooked the ‘inherent contradiction and intrinsic improbability’ in NIA prosecution story, observed, “…The things as stand today give two contradictory versions of the incident and both stories as floated by the ATS and NIA cannot be reconciled by any stretch of imagination. The evidence collected by the ATS in course of the investigation is not wiped out from the record and have to be considered by the trial Court even if the appellants are required to face the trial. There seems to be no answer in law as to how the trial Judge can deal with the materials collected by the ATS which implicates another set of accused persons. The case seems to have reached a dead end”.
Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni appeared for the appellant and Anil C. Singh, ASG, Advocate Manisha Jagtap appeared for the respondents.
The case concerned the 2006 Malegaon blasts, which resulted in 31 fatalities and over 300 injuries, where the appellants were implicated by the NIA in a supplementary charge-sheet alleging their participation in a conspiracy to execute the blasts.
Initially investigated by the Maharashtra ATS and later by the CBI, the case saw a shift when the NIA took over in 2011 and introduced a different set of accused. The appellants’ discharge applications were not pressed, following which charges were framed against them.
The Court found that the NIA’s case relied substantially on inadmissible confessional material and weak circumstantial evidence. It held that statements barred under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, along with identification evidence conducted years after the incident, lacked probative value. The Court further noted that key witnesses had retracted their earlier statements, rendering them unreliable.
The Bench noted that the prosecution narrative advanced by the NIA was fundamentally inconsistent with the earlier ATS/CBI version, leading to irreconcilable contradictions. It held that such mutually destructive versions could not coexist to justify a criminal trial, and that further investigation cannot be used to conduct a de novo inquiry introducing a wholly new case.
“The diagonally opposite stories in the charge-sheet filed by the ATS and the NIA lead nowhere. The witnesses proposed by the NIA are mostly hearsay witnesses. The materials collected by the NIA regarding purchase of bicycles etc. even if found truthful and admissible, cannot be considered as incriminating material against the appellants. A further investigation does not start with recording the statement of the accused person in a case…”, the Bench noted.
“…The further investigation is carried for the purposes of recording the evidence of a few more witnesses and for collection of additional materials to add other offences or another accused person. This is a mystery why the NIA did not collect fresh materials and started recording the retracted statement of the accused persons A1 to A3 and A5 to A8. The retracted statements of a few witnesses on which the NIA seeks to lay a case against the appellants can also not be admissible evidence. A witness who gives two versions of a story and retracts his previous statement becomes an unreliable witness and his testimony is liable to be discarded”, the Bench further noted.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that there was no sufficient material to proceed and discharged the four accused, setting aside the order framing charges and releasing them from their bail obligations.
Cause Title: Rajendra Chaudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:19094-DB)
Appearances:
Appellants: Girish Kulkarni, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Kunchikor, Himanshu Indise, Sujay Shingade, Kaushik Mhatre, Sanket Dhawan, Prakash Salsingikar, Vighneswar Subramanian, Himanshu Mane, Advocates.
Respondents: Manisha Jagtap, Advocate (for Union of India), Anil C. Singh, ASG, Chintan Shah, Special PP, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Adarsh Vyas, Advocates (for NIA), Kuldeep Patil, Anay Joshi, Digvijay Kachare, Saili Dhuru, Sumitkumar Nimbalkar, Sanika Joshi, Advocates (for CBI), M.M. Deshmukh, I/C PP, K.V. Saste, Addl. PP (for State).