Verdict reserved in Malegaon blast case; Court to deliver decision on May 8 | cliQ Latest

A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court has reserved its verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, with the decision set to be announced on May 8. The prosecution presented its final written arguments on April 19, marking the conclusion of the hearing. The blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, claimed the lives of six people and left over 100 others injured when an explosive device, attached to a motorcycle, detonated near a mosque in Malegaon, a town located about 200 kilometers from Mumbai.

Prosecution and Key Accused in the Case

Throughout the trial, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses, though 34 of them turned hostile. Key individuals facing trial include Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit, BJP leader Pragya Thakur, Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni. These accused are charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the case originally investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) before being transferred to the NIA in 2011.

NIA’s Clean Chit in 2016 and Developments in the Trial

In 2016, after taking over the investigation, the NIA filed a chargesheet giving a clean chit to Pragya Thakur and three other accused – Shyam Sahu, Praveen Takalki, and Shivnarayan Kalsangra. The NIA stated it had found no evidence against them, recommending their discharge from the case. Subsequently, the NIA court absolved Sahu, Kalsangra, and Takalki, but ruled that Thakur would have to face trial. On October 30, 2018, the special court framed charges against seven remaining accused, under sections 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit a terrorist act) of the UAPA, and various sections of the IPC, including 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntary causing hurt), and 153 (a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups).

The recording of the testimony of prosecution witnesses was completed in September of the previous year. The court now awaits the final verdict, with the legal proceedings having extended for several years.

The post appeared first on .