In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday acquitted all 12 Muslim men previously convicted for the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, which killed 189 people and injured over 800. The court cited “a complete failure” by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
A special bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak delivered the verdict after a six-month hearing of appeals filed by both the State and the convicts. The judgment brings to a close a long and painful 18-year ordeal for the accused, who have consistently maintained their innocence.
The High Court found the prosecution’s evidence deeply flawed, noting that nearly all eyewitness testimonies lacked credibility. The court questioned the plausibility of witnesses, including taxi drivers and train passengers, identifying the accused nearly 100 days after the blasts.
Significantly, the bench dismissed the importance of the alleged recovery of bombs, firearms, and maps, pointing out that the prosecution failed to even establish the type of explosive used in the attacks.
Originally, a special MCOCA court had convicted 12 men in 2015, sentencing five to death and the remaining seven to life imprisonment. Among those sentenced to death were Kamal Ansari, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan, and Asif Khan, accused of planting the bombs.
Seven others, including Tanveer Ahmed and Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, were handed life terms. Tragically, Kamal Ansari died in custody during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. One accused, Wahid Shaikh, had been acquitted by the trial court in 2015 after spending nine years in prison.
The appeals had been pending for nearly a decade before the High Court began hearing them in July 2024, following fresh pleas by the accused seeking speedy justice. Senior advocate and former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, Dr. S. Muralidhar, appeared on behalf of two of the convicts, Muzzamil Shaikh and Zameer Shaikh.
Dr. Muralidhar’s arguments highlighted glaring lapses in both investigation and trial, including improper recording of confessional statements and undue media influence on public perception. He told the court that law enforcement had adopted a “guilt-first” approach, driven by public pressure and sensational media coverage, which compromised the fairness of the investigation.
“Innocent people are sent to jail and, years later, when they’re released, their lives are already destroyed,” Muralidhar said, urging the court to recognize the long-term human cost of wrongful incarceration. “They haven’t stepped out for 17 years. Their prime years are gone,” he added.
He condemned the pattern of bias in terrorism-related cases and underscored the systemic failures in India’s criminal justice system. “In many such terror cases, investigating agencies have failed us miserably,” he told the court.
Muralidhar also addressed the broader social impact of such cases. “It’s not just the accused who suffer. Their families carry the stigma too. And society is cruel—it doesn’t let them live in peace,” he said, urging the bench to consider this suffering as part of its decision.
The acquittal now raises questions about accountability for the years lost by the wrongly accused and the credibility of the original investigation. While the judgment may have delivered delayed justice, it leaves behind unanswered questions about the failures that led to the wrongful imprisonment of 12 men for nearly two decades.
