2006 Nanded Bomb Blast Case: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea For Examination Of New Witness Who Claimed To Implicate RSS & VHP Leaders
After 16 years of the incident, the Petitioner approached the Trial Court wanting to be examined as a witness under Section 311 of CrPC, which was dismissed by the Trial Court.
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to implead a witness in the trial of the 2006 Nanded bomb blast case after 16 years, ruling that the petitioner had no legal standing and that the Sessions Court trial had already concluded with the acquittal of all accused.
In April, 2006, a blast happened inside a house, which resulted in the death of two persons. It was claimed by the prosecution that documents relating to the RSS and the VHP were recovered from the house after the blast.
The Single Bench of Justice Y.G. Khobragade was dealing with a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenged the January 17, 2023, order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, which had rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to be examined as a witness in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2007.
The FIR relating to the bomb blast was registered on April 6, 2006 and the application of the Petitioner to examine himself as a witness was filed on August 29, 2022, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge on January 17, 2023. The trial concluded and all the accused were acquitted by a Judgment of January 4, 2025.
The Petitioner claimed he was privy to a conspiracy involving accused Milind Parande, Rakesh Dhawade, and Ravidev (Mithun Chakravarthy) at a meeting in Mumbai’s Khetwadi in 2003. He alleged that these conspirators trained others in bomb-making, leading to the 2006 Nanded blasts, but were not named in the chargesheet due to an inadequate investigation.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Singhvi represented the Petitioner while Advocates Swapnil Joshi, A. T. Jadhavar, B. V. Virdhe and C. S. Kulkarni appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner argued that he had personal knowledge of the conspiracy hatched by the RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal. He claimed that he had attended a meeting where the conspiracy to do bomb blasts across the country was hatched.
He tried to explain the delay in his approaching the authorities by contending that he first approached the senior leaders of the RSS and the VHP, but they did not listen to him. He claimed that he was convinced about the involvement of the RSS and VHP after the Malegaon Bomb Blast in 2008. He claimed that he then wrote to the NIA and the Chief Justice of India. "He could at best be faulted for negligence. His truthfulness cannot be doubted", it was contended before the High Court.
The Petitioner argued that Section 311 of CrPC empowers the court to summon or examine any witness at any stage before passing the final order, if their testimony is necessary for a just decision.
However, the Trial Court had dismissed his application, holding that the case was already investigated by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and later the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), culminating in a closure report in 2009.
The High Court observed that the petitioner had not made any effort to disclose his alleged knowledge of the conspiracy from the time of the crime’s registration on April 6, 2006, until he filed his application 16 years later, on August 29, 2022.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner, if truly privy to the conspiracy, could have approached the investigating agencies earlier, making his claim belated and lacking legal standing.
Furthermore, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ashlesha S. Deshmukh informed the Court that the Sessions Court had acquitted all accused on January 4, 2025, rendering the petition infructuous.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court ruled that “the petitioner has no locus to file an application under Section 311 of CrPC,” and since the trial had already concluded, there was no ground for interference. The Court accordingly discharged the rule.
Cause Title: Yashwant Sahdev Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025: BHC: AUG: 5944]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sanjay Singhavi, Advocate Mohanish V. Thorat
Respondents: APP Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, Advocates A. T. Jadhavar, Swapnil Joshi, Chetan Chaudhary, B. V. Virdhe and C. S. Kulkarn
Click here to read/download the Judgment
