The ruling, delivered by Special Judge A K Lahoti, declared that essential legal prerequisites for invoking UAPA were not met due to defective sanction orders. Investigators also failed to produce reliable forensic proof linking the accused to the explosive device or motorcycle allegedly used in the attack.
The prosecution was able to confirm that a bomb blast occurred at Bhikku Chowk, near a mosque in Malegaon on 29 September 2008, in which six worshippers were killed and more than 95 injured—contrary to earlier claims of over 100 injured. However, the court held that there was no convincing evidence that the explosive was placed on the specific motorcycle registered to Thakur, nor proof that Purohit had assembled or stored RDX at his residence.
Judge Lahoti underscored that “suspicion is not sufficient ground for conviction”, and that the benefit of doubt must be granted to the accused in absence of cogent evidence. Medical records were found to contain inconsistencies and manipulation, casting further doubt on prosecutorial reliability.
The court ordered financial compensation—₹2 lakh to each family of the deceased and ₹50,000 to injured survivors—setting a precedent in cases marred by investigative deficiencies.
Following the verdict, Sadhvi Pragya rejected all allegations, stating that the case had destroyed her life, and expressed confidence that divine justice will address the actual perpetrators. Lt Col Purohit reaffirmed his belief in justice, thanking the court for allowing him to restore his reputation and serve his nation once more.
The ruling has triggered strong reactions. Asaduddin Owaisi, leader of AIMIM, described the investigation as deliberately shoddy and insisted the victims—Muslim worshippers—were targeted due to their religious identity. He demanded accountability for lives lost, questioning who truly carried out the attack.
The case spanned nearly 17 years, with trial beginning in 2018 and concluding in April 2025. Charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act were dropped in earlier stages, but UAPA and Indian Penal Code provisions remained in force until today’s acquittal.
With the acquittal concluding one of India's most contentious terror cases, attention now shifts to wider concerns over investigative standards, procedural safeguards, and the role of supplementary evidence in securing convictions under stringent legislation governing terrorism.