top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Bombay HC closes case against four accused

Mumbai: In a major setback to the prosecution, the Bombay High Court has quashed a Special Court’s order framing charges implicating four accused in the Malegaon 2006 bomb blasts case, thus effectively closing the trial against them.   A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak allowed appeals filed by the accused - Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, Manohar Ramsingh Narwaria and Lokesh Sharma - setting aside the Special NIA Court’s September 30, 2025 order...

Bombay HC closes case against four accused

Mumbai : In a major setback to the prosecution, the Bombay High Court has quashed a Special Court’s order framing charges implicating four accused in the Malegaon 2006 bomb blasts case, thus effectively closing the trial against them.   A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak allowed appeals filed by the accused - Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, Manohar Ramsingh Narwaria and Lokesh Sharma - setting aside the Special NIA Court’s September 30, 2025 order that had charged them with murder, criminal conspiracy and offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).   The high court’s ruling has discharged all the four appellants and halts the last remaining prosecution in one of the deadliest terror cases famous as the Malegaon 2006 blasts case. With this, there are no accused left facing trial.   Earlier, the court had condoned a 49-day delay in filing the appeals, noting they were statutory appeals under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act.   While admitting their pleas in January 2026, the Court had observed that a “prima facie case for interference” was made out and stayed further trial proceedings in the Special Court.   Later, the case narrative went topsy-turvy after the NIA entered the probe. It concluded that the earlier (nine) accused were innocent and instead pointed to the alleged involvement of Hindu right-wing activists.   In 2016, a Special NIA Court discharged all the nine originally accused-arrested men on grounds of insufficient evidence. This ruling was challenged before the high court in 2019 and is still pending.   Purported Confession The NIA’s conclusions in the revised case relied heavily on a purported confession by Swami Aseemanand in 2010, in which he allegedly claimed that an associate Sunil Joshi (since deceased) had told him that the Malegaon blasts were carried out by ‘his boys’.   Based on this confession, the NIA filed a fresh charge-sheet naming the four appellants, along with the deceased Joshi and three others absconding accused.   However, Aseemanand later retracted his confession and alleged coercion tactics. He was already in custody and accused in other blast cases like the Samjhauta Express, Mecca Masjid and Ajmer Sharif, and the court rejected his confession as ‘unreliable’, and acquitted him.   No Eyewitness The lawyer for the four appellants argued in the high court that there were no eyewitness linking the accused to the terror strike and that the prosecution’s case was based on a confession that was already discredited by multiple courts.   He also questioned the legality of discharging the other (nine) co-accused while proceeding against the (four) appellants, pointing out that appeals against those discharge orders are still pending.   The four men were arrested in 2013 and spent six years in custody before being granted bail in 2019, with the high court noting at the time that they had been incarcerated without trial for an extended period.   With today’s ruling, the case has acquired a queer legal status: the original nine accused have been discharged, and the charges against the subsequent set of four accused are quashed.   While the discharge of the nine accused awaits the final legal scrutiny, till date, not a single conviction has been secured in 20-year-old blasts case.   Incidentally, the verdict comes barely a year after a Special NIA Court acquitted all seven accused in the other Malegaon 2008 bomb blasts case, citing lack of evidence, in which, among the accused were ex-BJP MP Sadhvi Pragnya Singh Thakur, besides certain army officers.   As far as the survivors and the families of the victims are concerned, the 2006 case has brought no relief despite prolonged investigations by multiple probe agencies, shifting theories, and an unfulfilled quest for fixing accountability.   Multiple probes, no result It was a Friday afternoon of September 8, 2006 when multiple blasts ripped through the Hamidia Mosque and a cemetery in Malegaon, a power-loom town in Nashik district. The explosions killed more than 31 people besides injuring over 300, sparking widespread outrage.   The local police and then the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), first probed the case and arrested nine Muslim men against whom a chargesheet was filed in December 2006.   Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the case in 2007, and continued the same line of investigation, while the nine accused spent nearly five years in jail before securing bail in 2011.

Iran war sets fuel on fire in India

Mumbai: Barely a week into the escalating war in the Middle East, India is already staring at the spectre of a serious fuel crisis - marked by supply anxieties, sudden policy jolts and steep price hikes that could ignite a fresh wave of inflation across the economy.


Industry bodies and consumers alike were rattled on Friday as a series of back-to-back directives from the country’s oil ecosystem triggered panic in the markets.


In a span of barely 24 hours, consumers got three major shocks. Firstly, an order suggesting priority to domestic LPG supplies, leaving commercial LGP users to fend for themselves. Secondly, a big blow in the form of a directive that petrol-diesel retailers must make advance payments to procure their daily fuel supplies from Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs).


As these sunk in, the LPG prices were sharply increased for both household and commercial consumers.


The cascade of decisions by the three state-run OMCs - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) - reportedly invoking the Essential Commodities Act - sent tremors across the fuel retail sector.


However, after mounting concerns and frantic consultations, two of the controversial measures were put on hold, offering partial relief to the industry, said top players.


LPG Supply

The All India Petroleum Dealers Association (AIPDA) spokesperson Ali Daruwala said the Centre clarified late on Friday that commercial LPG supplies have not been stopped, easing fears among hotels, restaurants, industries and other bulk consumers.


“However, the government has today sharply increased LPG prices, which will hit users badly. The more worrying move was the directive mandating advance payments by fuel stations to the OMCs for their supplies. That would have destroyed many dealers, especially those outside major urban centres,” Daruwala said.


A second relief followed soon after. The Consortium of Indian Petroleum Dealers (CIPD) President Uday Lodh said the OMCs have withdrawn the advance payment diktat and restored the existing EOD (End-of-Day) settlement system.


“I raised the matter strongly with HPCL Executive Director (Retail) Debashish Basak, emphasising how such abrupt change in payment rules would be extremely difficult for dealers to comply with. I also made it clear that if advance payments are ever required, the OMCs must announce a proper transition schedule well in advance. They have agreed,” a relieved Lodh said.


Severe Impact

Industry representatives stressed that the fallout of this could have been severe, particularly for smaller dealers. India has around 90,000 fuel stations, of which barely 11 percent - roughly 10,000 outlets - are located in major urban centres.

 

Urban fuel pumps typically order at least one tanker daily of petrol and/or diesel - about 20-kiloLitres, depending on sales volumes. In contrast, fuel stations in rural and remote areas often lift barely one tanker a week, given their modest demand.

For such operators, the sudden requirement of advance payments could have triggered a severe cash-flow crisis and potentially disrupted fuel supplies in large parts of the country, stranding millions of vehicles.


LPG prices up, raise a stink

The bigger blow for 33.20 crore consumers came in the form of a sharp increase in LPG prices, effective Saturday, said Lodh and Daruwala - a move with far-reaching economic consequences.


The price of commercial LPG cylinders (19 kg) has been raised by Rs 115, while domestic LPG cylinders (14.2 kg) have been increased by Rs 60.


In Mumbai, commercial LPG prices have surged from Rs 1,720.50 to Rs 1,835.00, while domestic LPG cylinders now cost Rs 912.50, up from Rs 852.50.


The only marginal consolation is that Mumbai still remains the cheapest among the four metros.


Angry consumers exploded on social media, warning that the hike could fuel inflation, trigger cascading price increases in essential goods and services, and wreak havoc on already strained household budgets.


No Impact on petrol

Sources ruled out any immediate increase in petrol and diesel price as three fuel marketing companies - Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) with bumper profits in earlier this year - had enough financial muscle to absorb such impact.


Retail petrol and diesel prices have been on a freeze since April 2022, with fuel retailers absorbing losses when crude prices are high and making profits when rates are low.

Comments

bottom of page