‘Will challenge in Supreme Court’: Fadnavis on Bombay HC's acquittal of 2006 Mumbai train blasts accused

The Bombay HC on Monday acquitted all 12 accused of executing a series of coordinated blasts on Mumbai’s suburban trains.

Terming the acquittal of the accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case “shocking”, Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis said that the state would challenge the order in the Supreme Court.

"I have spoken to the legal experts and counsels, and have decided to move the SC in appeal," Fadnavis said.(ANI/ X)

“The ruling is shocking, especially in the backdrop of the earlier ruling of conviction to the accused. I have spoken to the legal experts and counsels, and have decided to move the SC in appeal,” Fadnavis said.

The Bombay high court on Monday acquitted all 12 accused of planning and executing a series of coordinated blasts on Mumbai’s suburban trains, which claimed the lives of over 180 people.

The blasts took place on July 11, 2006 during evening rush hours, and struck seven coaches on the western suburban line, injuring over 800 persons.

The HC ruled that the prosecution had “utterly failed” prove the involvement of the accused, and noted that the evidence presented was unreliable and insufficient for conviction in the case.

“It is hard to believe that the accused committed the crime. Hence their conviction is quashed and set aside,” a special division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak said in the verdict.

The investigation in the case was led by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).

The high court highlighted lapses in the probe, stating that the prosecution was not even able to confirm the nature of the bombs used during the blasts.

Highlighting procedural lapses during investigation, the court said that the handling of the recovered items, meant to serve as evidence, was poor. These included the explosives and circuit boxes, allegedly used to assembly the bombs.

The court also noted that the test identification parade was conducted by officers who were not authorised for the same.

The bench questioned the credibility of the witnesses, saying they did not have “enough opportunity” to see the accused on the day of the blasts.