Malegaon Blast Verdict Today: Who Are The 7 Key Accused? What Are The Charges Against Them?

(MENAFN- Live Mint) A special NIA court is likely to deliver its verdict on Malegaon blast case today, July 31, almost after 17 years of legal proceeding.

Six persons were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008.

The trial, which started in 2018, got over on April 19, 2025, and the case was reserved for judgement.

Who are the key accused in the Malegaon blast case?

BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thaku and Lt Col Prasad Purohit are among the seven key accused who faced trial in the case. Other accused are Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni

The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conducted the probe into the case, has sought "commensurate punishment" for the accused.

Also Read | Malegaon blast case: Special NIA court likely to deliver judgement in July What are the charges againt them?

The charges against then are UAPA sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) and various IPC sections, including 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153 (a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups).

During the trial, the prosecution presented 323 witnesses, of whom 37 turned hostile.

Also Read | 17 years later, Malegaon bomb blast case trial ends; verdict reserved for May 8 What Thakur and Purohit said in their defense?

In her concluding remarks, Thakur asserted that her involvement in the case was "totally illegal, bad in law and contrary to the law of the land and with malafide intention and ulterior motive". Referring to the testimony of ATS officer Mohan Kulkarni, who was involved in the investigation, she argued his statement "clearly shows she is an innocent person".

Purohit has submitted that "there is no material evidence" linking him to the alleged offence.

"The prosecution's case rests on fabricated and contradictory witness statements that are devoid of any independent corroboration and fail to meet the evidentiary threshold required in law," his final arguments claimed.

He alleged the investigation was "tainted by serious procedural irregularities and a complete disregard for standard legal protocols".

"These lapses not only vitiate the fairness of the proceedings but also render the prosecution's case wholly speculative and unreliable," he added.

(With inputs from agencies)

MENAFN31072025007365015876ID1109865900