On July 11, 2006, Mumbai witnessed one of the deadliest attacks in its history when seven bomb blasts struck suburban local trains within a span of 11 minutes during the evening rush hour. The coordinated explosions claimed 189 lives and left more than 800 others injured.

These bombs, concealed in pressure cookers, were strategically placed in first-class compartments of trains originating from Churchgate, with the blasts occurring near Matunga Road, Mahim Junction, Bandra, Khar Road, Jogeshwari, Bhayandar, and Borivali stations.

Following the investigation led by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), 13 individuals were put on trial for their alleged involvement in the bombings. In September 2015, a special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) convicted 12 of the accused: five were sentenced to death—Faisal Sheikh, Asif Khan, Kamal Ansari, Ehtesham Siddiqui, and Naveed Khan—while seven others received life imprisonment for being part of the conspiracy. One accused was acquitted at that stage. The harsh sentencing by the special court highlighted the gravity attributed to the crime and the significance of the case at a national level.

Nineteen years after the attacks, the Bombay High Court, comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak, undertook a comprehensive review of the case. On July 21, 2025, the High Court quashed and set aside the earlier convictions and sentences, ordering the release of all surviving convicts unless they were wanted in other cases. The bench observed that the prosecution had "utterly failed" to establish the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Reasons For Acquittal

Unreliable Witness Testimony: The court noted that many prosecution witnesses—including taxi drivers and train commuters—identified suspects more than 100 days after the blasts. It considered it improbable for people to accurately remember faces or details after such a significant gap, undermining the reliability of identification testimonies.

Weak Physical Evidence: The bench found the recovery of explosives, arms, and maps largely immaterial to the case; crucially, the prosecution could not even prove what type of bombs were actually used in the attacks, making the links to the accused very tenuous.

Questionable Investigation Process: The identification process and other investigative actions were described as having insufficient authority and oversight, raising further doubts about the credibility of the evidence produced.

Benefit of Doubt: The High Court concluded that the serious shortcomings in the prosecution's case entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt. The court declared that it was "hard to believe" the accused committed the crime given the state of evidence.

Aftermath And Reactions

The High Court's acquittal brought sharp reactions from all fronts—while families of victims were left without closure, supporters of the acquitted emphasised that the verdict restored faith in fairness and judicial independence. Legal advocates underscored the cost of wrongful incarceration, with the acquitted having spent nearly two decades in prison for crimes that could not be conclusively linked to them.

Conclusion

The 2006 Mumbai train blasts case stands as one of India's most tragic terrorist attacks and has now become a pivotal moment in the nation’s legal history. The Bombay High Court's judgment exposes serious flaws in the investigative and prosecutorial process, underlining the vital principle that convictions must be based on unimpeachable evidence, especially in cases of such gravity. As all 12 originally convicted men now walk free, the verdict highlights the ongoing challenge of securing both justice for victims and fairness for the accused.

Agencies