A special court in Mumbai will pronounce its judgment in the Malegaon 2008 blast case on Thursday. Special Judge A K Lahoti will deliver the verdict, the trial on which had begun in 2018.Seven accused namely former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, Major Ramesh Upadhyay (Retd), Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi are on trial facing charges, including criminal conspiracy and murder under the Indian Penal Code and sections of the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Explosive Substances Act.A bomb went off at a chowk in Malegaon, a town known for its powerloom industry, nearly 100 km northeast of Nashik in Maharashtra. It was Ramzan, the holy month of fasting in Islam, and the blast, which took place in an area with a large Muslim population, killed six persons and injured 100.The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which took over the investigation from the local police, suspected that the improvised explosive device (IED) had been planted on an LML Freedom motorcycle. It was suspected that the conspirators had consciously chosen the month of Ramzan and the eve of Navaratri to carry out the bombing, with an intention to cause communal rifts and endanger the internal security of the state.The ATS claimed that the registration number of the motorcycle that was found at the site of the explosion – MH-15-P-4572 – was fake, and that its engine number and chassis number had been erased. The ATS alleged that the owner of the bike was Pragya Singh Thakur alias Sadhwi Poornachetanand Giri and arrested her on October 23, 2008. Thakur’s arrest and interrogation, the ATS claimed, led it to the other accused. While the probe was initially led by then ATS chief Hemant Karkare, he was killed in the Mumbai 2008 terror attacks on November 26, 2008.The ATS continued its probe and filed a chargesheet in January 2009 against 11 accused claiming that they were part of the conspiracy to execute the blast. The ATS claimed that the accused had attended meetings, where discussions were held on targeting Muslims as ‘revenge’ and Malegaon was chosen for its dominantly Muslim population. It was also alleged that the accused had discussed working towards ‘Aryawart’ or a Hindu Rashtra with its own Constitution and flag, and a “government in exile”. The ATS also claimed that an organisation founded by Purohit in 2006, Abhinav Bharat, was linked to the conspiracy. The ATS had also invoked the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act in the case.In 2011, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the central investigation agency that was set up after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The NIA began a probe but in its chargesheet said that due to the passage of time, no additional evidence could be recovered from the spot. It went on to rerecord statements of some of the witnesses who denied their earlier statements recorded by the ATS. Pointing to ‘lacunae’ in the case, the NIA chargesheet filed on May 13, 2016, dropped the charges under MCOCA, saying that the manner in which the organised crime law was invoked by the ATS was “questionable”.Story continues below this adIt said there was no evidence against Thakur, as the motorcycle registered in Thakur’s name had been in the possession of absconding accused Ramchandra Kalsangra, who was using it well before the blast. It also said that since MCOCA was not applied, confessions made under the Act were inadmissible as evidence. Most of the ATS’s case against the accused relied on confessions, and the NIA said that the confession of Chaturvedi was an “outcome of torture”.On December 27, 2017, the court accepted the NIA’s contention that MCOCA cannot be invoked in the case. It said that the seven accused – Thakur, Purohit, retired Major Upadhyay, Kulkarni, Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, and Sudhakar Dwivedi – would face trial under UAPA, IPC, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The trial in the case began in December 2018.Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal said that 323 witnesses were examined of which nearly 40 turned hostile. The testimonies of these witnesses were mainly relating to Purohit and the alleged conspiracy meetings. These witnesses denied having participated in or heard any discussions by the accused about the conspiracy to carry out a bomb blast. Some of the witnesses also alleged that they had been coerced, illegally detained, and threatened by the ATS into giving false statements naming certain persons.In its final arguments, the prosecution submitted that there was evidence in respect of Call Data Records, and forensic evidence to show that the explosive device had been planted in the LML motorcycle. There was also evidence to show the presence of the accused at the places where the conspiracy meetings had taken place, and other documentary proof, it said.Story continues below this adThe accused claimed that with witnesses turning hostile, the conspiracy was not proven at all. The accused also submitted that the NIA chargesheet itself showed that the ATS probe was ‘biased’ and claimed that despite the serious nature of allegations, there was no evidence to show any conspiracy, including any proof on where the explosives were sourced from, transported and assembled.The court is expected to pronounce the judgment around 11 am.