In a significant ruling related to the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, the Bombay High Court has set aside the previous order of the Special Court where accused were convicted and sentenced to death.
Consult Verified Legal Experts
Adv. Suresh Tripathi
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
PRAYAGRAJ
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Tanya Bansal
Supreme Court of India
- • RERA Matters
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Ghaziabad
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Karan Khanna
Supreme Court of India
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Model Town
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Reena Saxena
Supreme Court of India
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Kanpur
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Vinayak Patil
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Pune City
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Sneha Naidu
Supreme Court of India
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
- • Startup Compliances
Hyderabad
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Akash Yadav
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Crime
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
GURUGRAM
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Pooja Iyer
Supreme Court of India
- • Audits
- • Trademark & other IP
- • Company Registration
Chennai
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Rajiv Malhotra
Supreme Court of India
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Karol Bagh
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Megha Shah
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Crime
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Ahmadabad City
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Ankit Jain
Supreme Court of India
- • RERA Matters
- • Consumer Protection
- • Legal Notice
Vijaypur
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Simran Kaur
Supreme Court of India
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Legal Notice
Ludhiana (East)
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Manish Tyagi
Supreme Court of India
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Noida
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Harsh Chauhan
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Crime
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Dehradun
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Nikita Arora
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Amritsar -I
+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Deepika Mishra
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Varanasi
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Sakshi Bansal
Supreme Court of India
- • Consumer Protection
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Ghaziabad
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Rohit Aggarwal
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Preet Vihar
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Pooja Saxena
Supreme Court of India
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Cyber Crime
Noida
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Arjun Nair
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Kochi
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Kavita Reddy
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Hyderabad
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Sandeep Yadav
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Gurgaon
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Anjali Kapoor
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
ROHINI
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Vikram Singh
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Chandigarh
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Neha Gupta
Supreme Court of India
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
Jaipur
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Amit Verma
Supreme Court of India
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
Lucknow
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Priya Mehta
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
MUMBAI
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Rahul Sharma
Supreme Court of India
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
Vivek Vihar
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Fatima Begum
Supreme Court of India
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Corporate Issues
Jaipur
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Gurpreet Singh
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Bangalore North
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Sai Chatterjee
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Audits
MUMBAI
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Diya Saxena
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Jaipur
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Simran Sharma
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Bail Matter
Vivek Vihar
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Priya Nair
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Rape & POCSO
Gandhi Nagar
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Ayaan Verma
Supreme Court of India
- • Matrimonial Disputes
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Pune City
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Sai Jain
Supreme Court of India
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
Parliament Street
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Kabir Saxena
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Crime
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Chandigarh
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Harpreet Patel
Supreme Court of India
- • Insurance Matters
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Amritsar -I
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Sai Mehta
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Bangalore North
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Zoya Das
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Ahmadabad City
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Kunal Banerjee
Supreme Court of India
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
KOLKATA
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Nazia Begum
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
NALGONDA
1-5+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Jaspreet Singh
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Amritsar -I
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Priya Nair
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
Trivandrum
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Joseph DSouza
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • RERA Matters
PANAJI
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Karthik Raman
Supreme Court of India
- • Employment Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Cyber Crime
Alandur
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Sana Mirza
Supreme Court of India
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
Parola
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Aarav Sharma
Supreme Court of India
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
DELHI CITY
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Arshdeep Gill
Supreme Court of India
- • Bail Matter
Hungund
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Kavita Pandey
Supreme Court of India
- • Rape & POCSO
Ghaziabad
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Neeraj Goswami
Supreme Court of India
- • Insurance Matters
Chengannur
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Rahul Deshmukh
Supreme Court of India
- • Adoption & Custody
Tiruttani
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Gurpreet Chawla
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
Chengalpattu
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Saurabh Ahuja
Supreme Court of India
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Cyber Crime
chamalekha
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Vikram Dhillon
Supreme Court of India
- • Rape & POCSO
MOHALI
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Amandeep Grewal
Supreme Court of India
- • Insurance Matters
Nakodar
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Gurmeet Brar
Supreme Court of India
- • Rape & POCSO
Chhachhrauli
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Anjali Goel
Supreme Court of India
- • Adoption & Custody
Noida
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Meenakshi Iyer
Supreme Court of India
- • Property Matter
Ambur
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Karthik Reddy
Supreme Court of India
- • Property Matter
Bangalore North
+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Jaspreet Sandhu
Supreme Court of India
- • Adoption & Custody
Chandigarh
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Ffj jvhgv
Supreme Court of India
- • Agreements
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Case Transfer Matters
Delhi Cantonment
10++
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Fatima Khan
Supreme Court of India
- • Insurance Matters
Jaipur
+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Gurpreet Sharma
Supreme Court of India
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • RERA Matters
Bangalore North
+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Pooja Jain
Supreme Court of India
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Legal Notice
MUMBAI
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Krishna Agarwal
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Crime
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Anticipatory Bail
Karnah
15-20+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Swati Singh
Supreme Court of India
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
- • Legal Notice
DELHI CITY
10-15+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Kunwar Gangesh
Supreme Court of India
- • Employment Matters
- • Company Registration
- • Legal Notice
DELHI CITY
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Chitra Bhanu Gupta
Supreme Court of India
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Cyber Crime
- • Legal Notice
KOLKATA
20-25+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Mahideep Singh
Supreme Court of India
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • Legal Notice
Dehradun
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Soumi Guha Thakurta
Supreme Court of India
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Matrimonial Disputes
- • Legal Notice
KOLKATA
5-10+
Years of
Experience
Experience
Adv. Kanchan Kumari
Supreme Court of India
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Audits
- • Cheque Bounce
MUMBAI
7+
Years of
Experience
Experience
In a significant ruling related to the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, the Bombay High Court has set aside the previous order of the Special Court where accused were convicted and sentenced to death.
The recent judgment passed by Justices Anil S. Kilor and Shyam C. Chandak, is based on the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, hence leading to the release of all accused.
The 2006 Train Blasts-Background
- Dated 11th July, 2006, there were seven synchronised bomb blasts in the local trains of Mumbai during rush hour, which resulted in the death of 187 people and injury to around 800.
- First-class compartments were targeted to maximise casualties.
- At the initial stage different FIRs were filed at 7 police stations, which were later consolidated as the investigation was taken over by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).
- During the investigation, thirteen accused were charged under numerous laws including the IPC, UAPA, MCOCA, as well as the Explosive Acts.
- Five accused were sentenced to death by a Special Court in the year 2015.
- The State later filed a confirmation petition under Section 366(1) CrPC, which resulted in the present review by the state High Court.
Evidences Provided:-
Test Identification Parades (TIPs)
TIPs were conducted on November 7, 2006- the High Court declared them as inadmissible as the officer conducting them lacked legal authority. Although dock identification was conducted later, it was found to be unreliable by the Court due to the extended time gap.
Witness Testimonies
Four kinds witnesses were analysed:
- Taxi Drivers (PW-63 & PW-77): due to delayed statements and lack of earlier identification resulted their witness as unreliable.
- Train Passengers (PW-57, 60, 62, 74): due to prolonged silence before having their statements recorded, as well as delayed TIPs resulted in non-credibility of the witnesses.
- Witness to Bomb Assembly (PW-75): The witness changed statement under the cross-examination and prior involvement in other cases also raised questions on the credibility.
- Conspiracy Witness (PW-59): Vague recollection of events of the blast as well as people made the testimony as untrustworthy.
- Also, other eyewitnesses who could have provided help with the case were not included for the TIPs or were examined either, further weakening the case.
Recoveries
Materials including the RDX, detonators as well as cookers were also recovered.
The prosecution, however were not able to prove proper custody and sealing of the above mentioned items. Also, the investigation could not establish the kind of the bomb which was used conclusively, further weakening the probative value of the recoveries.
Confessional Statements
It was ruled by the Court that all confessions are inadmissible, explaining-
No proper legal approval for MCOCA.
- No proper compliance with the procedural safeguards as established by the law
- Signs of custodial torture were found
- Inadequate "cooling-off" period before confessions were made
- Absence of legal counsel could be found
- All accused retracted their confessions
It was observed by the Court that the confessions lacked credibility, were found to be partially copied, and also signs of coercion could be seen.
Alternative Hypothesis
Mentioning the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court explained that all other possible hypotheses shall be excluded to convict.
Final Verdict
The High Court decided that the prosecution had failed at every turn into proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was emphasised in the judgement that convicting wrong individuals without proper evidence in the name of justice would defeat the purpose of rule of law as well as public trust.
All convictions and death sentences passed by the Special Court were quashed. The Court ordered that the accused were to be released on a PR bond of ₹25,000 each as provided under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
For further information on the subject, or to follow similar legal news, you may follow our blog under Sharks of Law or on instagram and youtube. If you are involved in a civil or criminal case and wish to talk to a lawyer online or seek free legal counsel, you may contact us through the following information.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
Adv Vipul Singh Raghuwanshi
Legal expert and contributor at Sharks of Law. Committed to providing clear and accessible legal guidance to everyone.
