Mumbai, July 31: Families of the victims in the 2006 Malegaon bomb blast case have announced plans to challenge the recent acquittal of all seven accused by the Special NIA Court. The victims’ lawyer, Shahid Nadeem, confirmed that they will file an appeal in the Bombay High Court, and if necessary, escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
Nearly 17 years after the Malegaon blast, a special court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused, noting there was "no reliable and cogent evidence" against them. Those acquitted include former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur alias Swami Purnachetanand Giri, former Military Intelligence official Lt Col Prasad Purohit (Retd), and Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi alias Dayanand Pandey alias Swami Amrutanand Devtirth, a self-proclaimed Shankaracharya.
‘We Will Not Stop Here’
“We will not stop here… we will move the Bombay High Court, we will move the Supreme Court,” Nadeem said, urging the Maharashtra government to act with the same urgency it displayed in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case. Last week, the state moved the Supreme Court within 24 hours of the acquittal of 12 individuals in that case.
“The government must show the same speed in the Malegaon case as well,” he added.
Court’s Observations and Families’ Response
The Special Court acknowledged that the Malegaon blast occurred — killing six people and injuring over 100 — but acquitted the accused by extending them the benefit of doubt. “This is not a clear acquittal,” Nadeem asserted. “Accused No.10 (Sudhakar Chaturvedi) claimed no bomb blast took place, but that is false. We will file the appeal independently.”
He also expressed anguish at the 17 year wait for justice: “The victims are not at fault. They came from Malegaon to testify and show their wounds, but the agencies failed — ATS and the government both failed. The court gave benefit of doubt only because of investigative lapses.”
PIL Against Investigating Agency
Separately, lawyer activist Nitin Satpute announced plans to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court, naming the NIA as a respondent.
“The investigating agency deliberately left lapses in evidence collection and filed a defective chargesheet to shield the accused,” Satpute alleged. “An FIR must be filed against officers who failed to investigate properly at someone’s behest. I will be filing a PIL to demand accountability.”
Comments
Add new comment