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.

Maharashtra’s solar push faces backlash

Consumers who invested heavily in rooftop solar face new grid charges and curbs on banking

Mumbai: A fresh set of directives by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has triggered widespread discontent among rooftop solar consumers, marking a decisive shift in the state’s renewable energy policy—from incentives and subsidies to cost recovery through grid-related charges.


At the heart of the backlash is a structural change: solar consumers, who were encouraged for years to invest in de-centralised generation, are now being asked to pay for using the grid—even for electricity they generate and consume themselves. For many, this alters the financial viability of projects worth hundreds of crores, and risks eroding trust in government-backed energy transitions.


Policy shift alters solar economics

India’s solar mission, driven by aggressive capacity targets and fiscal incentives, saw rapid adoption across households, commercial establishments and industry. Maharashtra, after a slow start, emerged as a key contributor to the country’s installed solar capacity, which stood at over 150 GW as of March 31, 2026.


The model was simple: generate solar power, consume what you need, and export surplus to the grid under net metering, earning credits or payments. Subsidies and concessional financing further sweetened the deal.


However, MERC’s latest order introduces grid support charges, higher banking fees, and tighter restrictions on the time window for energy banking.


The changes, though technical in design, signal a deeper policy recalibration—one that prioritises grid sustainability over de-centralised autonomy.


Consumers will now pay charges not only for exporting power but also for self-consumption routed through the grid. Simultaneously, banking charges have risen sharply, and the window to use stored energy has been cut from 17 hours to just 8 hours, reducing operational flexibility.


The result: solar projects may increasingly serve only real-time consumption needs, undermining their earlier promise of round-the-clock cost savings. This could push consumers towards expensive battery storage solutions, further complicating project economics.


Net Metering

While the net metering framework remains intact, the tariff for surplus power has been reduced significantly. This tilts the model away from profit-making and towards self-consumption, effectively discouraging large-scale rooftop investments aimed at revenue generation.


In parallel, time-of-day tariffs—cheaper during solar generation hours and higher during peak demand—signal an attempt to reshape consumption behaviour. But industry stakeholders warn that such measures could dampen fresh investments in the sector.


Financial Stress

The regulatory shift also reflects the financial strain of Maharashtra’s power distribution ecosystem. Mounting subsidy arrears owed by the state government to distribution companies have weakened balance sheets, forcing a search for new revenue streams.


Key Changes

  •  Introduction of grid support charges

  •  Banking charges increased from 2% to 8%

  •  Banking window reduced from 17 hours to 8 hours

  •  Net metering retained with additional conditions

  •  Tariff for surplus solar power reduced to Rs 2.82 per unit


At a time when India is pushing aggressively towards renewable energy to meet climate and energy security goals, policy consistency remains critical. Maharashtra’s latest move, while addressing immediate fiscal concerns, risks slowing rooftop solar adoption – particularly in the commercial and industrial segments.



Comments

bottom of page