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.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page