Top Court disposes of petition questioning bail of Pragya Singh Thakur in Malegaon blast trial

On May 2, the Supreme Court disposed of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in 2017 by Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayed Bilal, the father of one of the victims of the 2008 Malegaon blast, which had challenged the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to accused Pragya Singh Thakur, also known as Sadhvi Pragya or Swami Purnchet Anand Giri. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma. Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Ejaz Maqbool informed the court that the SLP sought to cancel the bail granted by the High Court on April 25, 2017, where the court had held that no "prima facie" case had been established against Thakur at the time. However, with the trial in the Malegaon blast case now concluded before the special NIA court—nearly 16 years after the incident—the counsel requested the top court to close the petition. He pointed out that final arguments had concluded and the verdict was reserved on April 19. The blast, which took place in Malegaon in Maharashtra’s Nashik district on September 29, 2008, had claimed seven lives. During the lengthy trial, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) examined 108 witnesses.

Maqbool also urged the apex court to ensure that Special Judge A.K. Lahoti, who heard the case, is not transferred before the verdict is pronounced. Judge Lahoti is currently among the judicial officers listed for transfer by the Bombay High Court, though an extension has been granted allowing him to remain until August 31. Representing Thakur, Advocate Avdhesh Kumar Singh informed the bench that the judgment is expected to be delivered on May 8. He also noted that all the accused have been directed to be physically present in court on the day of the verdict. Taking into account these developments, the Supreme Court noted: “The Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the NIA Special Court in Mumbai has reserved judgment in Special Case No. 1/2016, which is likely to be delivered this month. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 concurs with this submission. In view of the circumstances, there is no further cause for judicial intervention in this matter. The petition is accordingly disposed of.”