In a major relief to four accused in the 2006 Malegaon Bomb Blast case, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed and set aside the order by which a special court had framed charges against them. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak pronounced the order in the appeals filed by Rajendra Chaudhary, Lokesh Sharma, Dhan Singh and Manohar Ram...
In a major relief to four accused in the 2006 Malegaon Bomb Blast case, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed and set aside the order by which a special court had framed charges against them.
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak pronounced the order in the appeals filed by Rajendra Chaudhary, Lokesh Sharma, Dhan Singh and Manohar Ram Singh Narwaria.
"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," CJ Chandrashekhar observed in the order.
A further investigation, the bench highlighted, does not start with recording the statement of the accused person in a case.
"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 (Muslim accused, who were arrested by ATS and discharged later). 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 said.
Further, the bench opined that the Special Judge did not apply his judicial mind to the materials laid before him and considered the materials which are not admissible in evidence to frame charges against the appellants.
"The order dated September 30, 2025 framing charges against the appellants is set aside and the appellants are discharged. They are also discharged of the liability of bail bonds furnished by them," the bench ordered.
Notably, the judges had earlier opined that a "prima facie" case was made out by the appellants for the High Court to interfere with the order framing charges against them by the special NIA court.
Notably, this 2006 Malegaon blast case has been pending before the special NIA court and has seen several twists ever since it was registered. A blast took place near the Hamidia Masjid in Malegaon on September 8, 2006 just after the Friday prayers. A total of 37 persons died in the blasts which also injured over 300 citizens.
Initially, the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) had arrested nine Muslim men for carrying out the blast near the Masjid. They spent at least 5 years in jail and were granted bail in 2011. The case as put forth by the ATS was also affirmed by the CBI in its investigation. However, in 2016, the special court discharged all the nine men with a finding that the prosecution evidence fell short to prosecute them.
Subsequently, the NIA arrested the four appellants, after Swami Aseemanand— an accused in several other blast cases, allegedly confessed that right-wing groups had planted Bomb near the Masjid.
The four accused were given bail by the Bombay High Court in June 2019.
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni along with Advocates Abhishek Kunchikor, Himanshu Indise, Sujay Shingade, Kaushik Mhatre, Sanket Dhawan, Prakash Salsingikar, Vighneswar Subramanian and Himanshu Mane appeared for the Appellants.
Advocate Manisha Jagtap represented the Union of India.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh along with Special Public Prosecutor Chintan Shah and Advocates Krishnakant Deshmukh and Adarsh Vyas represented the NIA.
Advocates Kuldeep Patil, Anay Joshi, Digvijay Kachare, Saili Dhuru, Sumitkumar Nimbalkar and Sanika Joshi represented the CBI.
Chief Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor KV Saste represented the State.
Case Title: Rajendra Chaudhary s/o Vikram Singh Chaudhary @ Dashrath @ Samander @ Badal Yadav @ Laxman Das Maharaj vs Union of India (Criminal Appeal 107 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 206