2006 train blasts: Bombay HC acquits all 12 accused, says prosecution failed to prove case

Mangalore Today News Network

Mumbai, July 21, 2025: The Bombay High Court on Monday quashed and set aside a special court order convicting 12 accused in the 7/11 train blasts case of 2006.

The trial court in 2015 sentenced five individuals to death and seven others to life sentences in connection with the seven coordinated blasts that killed over 180 people in Mumbai.

A special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak observed that “the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the case beyond a reasonable doubt".

On July 11, 2006, a series of blasts struck seven coaches of a suburban train in western Mumbai, killing 189 commuters and injuring 824.

After more than eight years of proceedings, a special MCOCA court conducted the trial and delivered its verdict in October 2015.

The convicts Kamal Ansari from Bihar, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh from Mumbai, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui from Thane, Naveed Hussain Khan from Secunderabad and Asif Khan from Jalgaon in Maharashtra were found guilty of planting the bombs and sentenced to death.

Notably, the trial court order of death sentence, by law, needed confirmation by the HC before it was executed.

In 2015, the Maharashtra government moved the High Court seeking confirmation of the death sentences awarded to five convicts.

Meanwhile, the convicts also filed appeals challenging the special court’s verdict.

One of the accused had passed away in 2021 due to COVID-19.

In July 2024, the high court formed a special bench led by Justice Kilor, which conducted regular hearings for nearly six months

Five months ago, the high court had reserved the matter for judgment.

Senior advocates S Muralidhar, Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Nitya Ramakrishnan, and S Nagamuthu represented the accused, arguing that the prosecution’s case was flawed and that the trial court had erred in convicting them.

In contrast, special public prosecutor Raja Thakare, appearing for the State, defended the death sentences, asserting that the case qualified as one of the “rarest of rare."