Moneycontrol
HomeNewsIndiaIgnored RDX, dismissed confessions: Why Maharashtra is fighting to overturn 2006 blasts acquittals in SC

Ignored RDX, dismissed confessions: Why Maharashtra is fighting to overturn 2006 blasts acquittals in SC

State challenges Bombay HC's clean chit to all 12 accused, citing overlooked evidence, explosive recoveries, and flawed dismissal of confessions.

July 23, 2025 / 07:41 IST
Story continues below Advertisement
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter on July 24.

The Maharashtra government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision to acquit all 12 convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings case. The appeal comes just a day after the high court ruled that the prosecution had “utterly failed” to prove its case and termed it “hard to believe” that the accused were involved in the deadly attack.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before Chief Justice B R Gavai on Tuesday morning, seeking urgent listing. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter on July 24.

Story continues below Advertisement

What the state is arguing

The state’s appeal has sharply criticised the high court’s reasoning, describing it as excessively technical and legally unsound. Among its main objections:


The high court had refused to accept the recovery of 500 grams of RDX from one accused because the explosive was not sealed with a lac seal. The state argues this is a 'hyper-technical ground' and notes that RDX is highly inflammable, which is why a lac seal was avoided for safety reasons.
The plea asserts that the seizure of RDX was carried out under due sanction, with the sanctioning authority, Prosecution Witness (PW) 26, duly examined in court. Yet, the high court chose to disbelieve the evidence without finding any legal infirmity.
The appeal disputes the high court’s rejection of a key confessional statement on grounds that it lacked details like the exact date of arrival or full physical descriptions of alleged Pakistani co-conspirators. The government argues that such omissions do not invalidate the overall confession.

‘Explosive Evidence’ shouldn’t be ignored, state says