The Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed the order framing charges against four accused in the 2006 Malegaon blast case [Rajendra Chaudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak pronounced the order on appeals filed by the accused against a September 2025 order of a special court framing charges against them.
The appeal also questioned the manner in which the trial court framed charges and the discharge of several co-accused in the case.
The ruling by the High Court today closed the case against accused Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, Manohar Ram Singh Narwaria and Lokesh Sharma and brought the trial against them to an end.
The bench had earlier condoned a 49‑day delay in filing the appeal, noting that the challenge was a statutory appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act).
In the same order of January 2026, the Court had recorded that a prima facie case for interference was made out and had stayed further proceedings before the trial court pending the outcome of the appeal.
It allowed the appeal today and discharged all four appellants.
The Malegaon case dates back to September 8, 2006, when an offence was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other laws against unknown persons following serial blasts in the powerloom town.
The investigation was first conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which arrested 12 accused and filed a charge sheet in December 2006.
The probe was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in February 2007, and later taken over by the NIA, which, after further investigation, arrayed the four appellants among other accused and filed a fresh charge sheet.
In the High Court, the appellants' counsel made two primary contentions. First, that the NIA failed to produce any eyewitness who actually claimed to have seen the incident; and second, that the discharge of other charge-sheeted accused was patently illegal.
The counsel also noted that separate criminal appeals challenging those discharge orders are currently pending.