How police investigates terror cases in India, and how delay in trials is getting in the way of justice

The scene of the terror attack is expected to be immediately cordoned off, but often it is tampered with by onlookers. (File photo)

Recent acquittals of the accused in two cases of terror: the 2006 Mumbai train blasts and the 2008 Malegaon blast – both investigated by Maharashtra Police – has been very worrying. But they have finally succeeded in rousing the interest of usually indifferent citizens around why we haven’t been able to give justice to the victims. The genuine interest is much appreciated, but I hope it sustains.

Indeed, one of the main reasons for these acquittals is the apathy that we as citizens show towards the criminal justice system. Consequently, no government has invested in prompt and efficient justice delivery. The 11 July 2006 Mumbai train blasts case was concluded in conviction by the special court in 2015, nine years later. The accused were acquitted on appeal in 2025, nineteen years later.  And the 29 September 2008 Malegaon blast case has concluded only in 2025, nearly seventeen years down the line. Around 190 innocents had lost their lives in train blasts and more than 700 were injured. Six lost their lives in the Malegaon blast, with around 100 injured. These awfully late court trials are the main reasons for acquittals.

‘Stitched’ cases, tampered evidence, political pressure

An explosion in terror cases leads to multiple deaths. Let me explain how we investigate, and how delay in trials is proving detrimental to our cases.

In the Mumbai train blasts case of 2006, there were seven different scenes of blast in the local trains of Mumbai on the fateful day. Each police station in whose jurisdiction it took place, registered a case. During investigation into such cases, we ‘stitch’ them together to submit a single chargesheet in the court.

Between registration of a case and its submission in the court, there are many important steps:

- First, we draw a map / sketch / carry out ‘panchnama’ of the spot that is also videographed.

- The scene of offence is expected to be immediately cordoned off, but my experience has been that it is generally tampered with by onlookers. In terror cases, the first response – understandably – is to take the injured to hospitals. But in other cases, too, family members or onlookers in India have a tendency to interfere with the spot. Many times, this seemingly innocuous intrusion hampers the collection of samples of explosives or relevant material from the explosion site. Later during the trial, defence lawyers prove the spot to have been tampered with, thus leading to adverse inferences by courts.

- While some officers from the relevant police stations rush to the spot, our crime sleuths start touching base with their informants about potential suspects. Here, I wish to highlight that no police officer worth their salt would involve wrong persons as accused in terror cases. Some mischief is heard of in simple cases, and police leadership is expected to come down heavily on it.

Political pressure and interference are common and widespread, but again we are expected to stand up to them. Tragically many of us bow down to politicians, but that is another story and article.

Best investigators, top experts

Investigation of terror cases goes to our best investigators with keen monitoring by well-trained seniors. Therefore, the High Court’s observation that some innocent citizens were falsely implicated in the Mumbai train blast has come as a shock. In this particular case, many principal criminals could not be arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) Maharashtra. There were several sleeper cells going around those days. They had been trained in Pakistan and were being given specific tasks, which – put together – led to the train blasts. Since some of the main culprits were not arrested, the investigators probably could not fill in all the gaps to satisfy the High Court, though the special court had accepted the evidence and had convicted the 12 accused.

Along with registration of a case, visiting the scene, reaching out to informants, officers start collecting scientific, forensic and technical evidence. Sometimes it is not available, and a few times, the investigating officers may miss out. However, terror cases are supervised by senior officers and the officers of Indian Police Service (IPS) who are trained well in the latest technologies. And, in my opinion, terror cases do get the best support of our forensic scientists and experts who identify the explosives and technology involved in these blasts.

When cases fall through: Turning witnesses, too-long trials

While late trials are the weakest point in the criminal justice system, the second one I would flag is witnesses. Police find it very difficult to trace witnesses, most of whom are reluctant to come forward. Some due to the fear factor and most due to apathy. In the train blast case, while the special court believed the witnesses, the High Court did not. In the Malegaon case, witnesses did not stand by their statements that had been recorded before magistrates. A very sincere investigating officer involved in the Malegaon blast case told me that Captain Nitin Joshi (Retd) – one of chief witnesses – did not support the investigation in the court. And that ‘the witnesses from Pune too did not, and had been systematically tutored to make allegations, so that the image of the ATS was tarnished’.

Witnesses not standing up in courts is also due to late trials. They either lose interest or are won over by the accused. However, in the Malegaon case, I wonder if religion became a factor that weighed on the minds of witnesses and thus they went back on their statements. I also wonder why the court has not initiated perjury against them. May be because they alleged that the initial statements were obtained through torture. The conduct of tutored witnesses – whether in favour or against any case – has made the task of police, prosecution and judiciary difficult.

A strong and honest officer 

My last word, specifically on the Malegaon case, is that knowing the late Hemant Karkare, he would not arrest or prosecute a wrong person. He was too strong and honest an officer to bow down to any pressure. And he was at the helm of ATS Maharashtra at that time.

Rohini Salian, who was initially the prosecutor for the Malegaon case, is another person I can vouch for. She had openly alleged in 2015 that the government had, through the National Investigation Agency (NIA), put pressure on her to “go soft” on the accused. She is recently reported to have said: “I was out since 2017, and before that, I had presented plenty of evidence and the Supreme Court had upheld it all. Where did it all vanish?”

Then ATS Maharashtra chief Hemant Karkare, who led the investigation into the Malegaon blast case, was killed in action during the 26 November 2008 terror attack on Mumbai. (File photo)

Worst case, and the way out

So, for me, Malegaon is not a typical terror trial. It is the one that has been mauled in a systematic way. An important CD found broken, some important statements recorded by a magistrate found missing and the prosector saying she was being pressurised, point to an insidious conspiracy to batter the investigation. Tragic that the behind-the-scenes operators have succeeded.

And this is where the citizens and we as a community have failed. We have not exerted enough pressure on the government for prompt time-bound court trials as a system. We need high-quality, honest investigations, latest forensics and technology, good prosecutors and trials that start within a year, and conclude within two years maximum.

For this we need more police officers, prosecutors, forensic experts and judicial officers. We need better correctional facilities like jails. Criminal justice should have no colour or caste, and Khaki should remain pristine in its shine. It is the duty of every citizen to build up public pressure so that the government invests in human resources and technology for all the five wings of the criminal justice system, that is, police, forensics, prosecution, judiciary and jails.