Asaduddin Owaisi, chief of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), has strongly criticised a verdict by the Bombay High Court discharging four accused in the 2006 Malegaon blast case, calling it a “betrayal” of victims and their families.
In a statement, Owaisi questioned the role of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and raised concerns about the direction of the investigation. He noted that the blasts killed 31 people and injured over 300, alleging that the attack targeted members of the Muslim community.
Owaisi also pointed out that several individuals initially arrested in the case were later acquitted, and criticised investigative lapses highlighted by the court. He questioned whether the NIA would challenge the verdict before the Supreme Court of India, expressing scepticism over the possibility.
“This is a betrayal of all the victims and their families,” he said, adding that justice remains elusive in several terror cases.
Reference to earlier cases
Owaisi drew parallels with the 2008 Malegaon blast case, alleging a pattern in how investigations have been handled. He cited claims made by former prosecutor Rohini Salian regarding pressure during the probe.
The 2008 blast in Malegaon killed six people and injured over 100. Victims’ families have challenged the acquittal of accused persons, including Pragya Singh Thakur and Prasad Purohit, arguing that the trial court’s conclusions were flawed.
Families challenge acquittal
Relatives of victims have filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court, seeking to overturn the acquittal. They argue that the investigation was compromised, with crucial evidence allegedly mishandled or ignored.
The appeal also raises concerns about how the prosecution was conducted, including allegations that efforts were made to weaken the case. Petitioners have urged the court to issue notices to all respondents, including those acquitted.
Court observations in the case
In its findings, the trial court said the prosecution had established that a blast occurred but failed to prove key aspects linking the accused to the crime. It cited lack of conclusive evidence, including issues with forensic samples and gaps in the investigation process.
The court also noted discrepancies in medical records and said there was no clear evidence of explosives being stored or assembled at the residence of one of the accused. It further observed that no strong proof linked the organisation Abhinav Bharat to terror funding in the case.
The matter remains under legal scrutiny as appeals and responses from investigating agencies are awaited.
