NIA Projected 'Altogether New Story', Ignored Findings Of ATS & CBI: Bombay High Court While Discharging Four In 2006 Malegaon Blasts
In its order discharging four men from the 2006 Malegaon blast case, the Bombay High Court has pulled up the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for not going by the investigations conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and for coming up with an 'altogether new story' with respect to the blasts.Notably, the ATS, which...
In its order discharging four men from the 2006 Malegaon blast case, the Bombay High Court has pulled up the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for not going by the investigations conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and for coming up with an 'altogether new story' with respect to the blasts.
Notably, the ATS, which initially investigated the case had contended that the nine men, who were later discharged, had conspired and executed the blasts near the Hamidia Masjid on September 8, 2006 wherein around 37 people died and over 300 injured.
The ATS claimed that the nine men were members of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), a banned organisation.
The agency further claimed that some of the nine men received training in Pakistan, where they learnt making of bombs and after returning to India. The nine accused on instructions of some Pakistani nationals, prepared bombs and planted the same on a bicycle near the Masjid. The blast took place after the Friday prayers in the area.
The said findings were affirmed by the CBI, which took over the investigations in February 2007. The CBI's supplementary chargesheet was in line with the initial chargesheet filed by the ATS.
However, when the NIA was given the task to further probe the case in April 2011, the central agency once again recorded the statements of the nine accused and also of some of the 'protected witnesses' and all of them retracted from their earlier statements recorded under section 164 CrPC. The initial group of accused told the NIA that they were tortured and forced by ATS sleuths to give certain statements and to confess to the crime.
Accordingly, on April 25, 2016, the special NIA court in Mumbai, which was seized with the case, discharged all the nine accused.
It relied on the case of the NIA which pointed out that one Swami Aseemanand, a prime accused in the Makkah Masjid blast case, had confessed that the blasts which took place in Malegaon was a "handy work" of some right-wing men under one Sunil Joshi. On the basis of this testimony, the NIA investigated the case further and arrested the four accused - Rajendra Chaudhary, Lokesh Sharma, Dhan Singh and Manohar Ram Singh Narwaria, who the anti-terrorism agency claimed were the ones, who conspired to commit the terrorist act.
The agency also showed Sunil Joshi as dead while co-accused Ramcharan Kalsangara was described as absconding, and Ramesh Mahalkar and Sandeep Dange were described as wanted accused persons.
After recording the entire facts of the case, the division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak expressed 'surprise' over the NIA coming up with an altogether new story which was 'diagonally' contradicting with the version of the ATS and the CBI.
"The NIA projected an altogether new story that the appellants and other accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit terrorists acts with an intention to strike terror in the minds of the people. They were given arms and bomb preparation training at Bagli (MP) under the supervision of Sunil Joshi, Ramchandra Gopal Singh Kalsangara and Lokesh Sharma. In the supplementary charge-sheet, the NIA narrated its story on how appellants along with the wanted accused persons made preparations, planning and procurement of materials and caused the bomb blasts. However, what is important to keep in mind is that the NIA created the prosecution story mainly on the basis of confession and spot discovery statements of the appellants. The new story propounded by the NIA is based on retraction of confessional statements made by the initially arrested group of accused and a protected witness," Chief Justice Chandrashekhar held in the order.
Further the judges pointed out to certain conclusions of ATS and CBI on one hand and that of the NIA on the other. The bench pointed out how the ATS and CBI contended that one of the nine accused, was a planter of the bomb while the NIA claimed that he was at least 400 km away from the blast site on the relevant day.
The judges held that the NIA's investigation and case was only based on some retracted statements of the initial group of accused and that the evidence against the four appellants was a 'hearsay' piece of evidence.
"This new story of involvement of the appellants is based on the disclosure statements suffered by them. The materials collected by the NIA to show that the appellants purchased bicycles which were used in the crime are hearsay evidence. This was a fact known to the Investigating Agency that bicycles were purchased and used in the crime by the first set of accused persons who were sent up for trial by the ATS and CBI. The NIA has projected an entirely different story and states that the investigation of the case is still continuing and further evidence is being collected against the accused persons and requested the Special Court to permit it to continue further investigation of the case as per the provisions of section 173(8) CrPC," the judges observed.
The NIA, the judges said, completely ignored the charge-sheet laid by the ATS which gives a vivid narration of the entire planning by the initial group of accused.
In the order authored by Chief Justice Chandrashekhar, it is said that the Special Judge in his order has overlooked the inherent contradiction and intrinsic improbability in the prosecution story as put forth by the NIA.
"There is no explanation coming forth as to how the voice samples and FSL reports collected by the ATS and CBI can be ignored by the trial Court. 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. The diagonally opposite stories in the charge-sheet filed by the ATS and the NIA lead nowhere," the Chief Justice has underlined in the order.
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, the bench said, adding that a further investigation 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. 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.
Therefore, the bench concluded that there was no sufficient material on record to proceed against the four appellants. "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 them is set aside and the appellants are discharged. They are also discharged of the liability of bail bonds furnished by them," the Chief Justice led bench ruled.
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) 207