Why All Accused Walked Free in Blast, Markaz Cases

Bombay High Court acquits all accused; probe flaws show rush to blame Muslims during COVID-era Markaz case.

By
Zahid Saba
-
0
28

Introduction

In a shocking turn of events, on 21 July 2025, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 men convicted for the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. Nearly two decades after the tragic attack that claimed 189 lives and injured over 800, the court ruled that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove its case.The Times of India+15Wikipedia+15The Times+15

This momentous decision follows years of contested investigation and has reopened painful questions about whether the government, its agencies, and media engaged in a deliberate framing of Muslims to meet political ends—especially during the COVID‑19 period when the Nizamuddin Markaz case stirred communal tensions.

1. What Happened: 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts and Convictions

2. Why the Accused Are Now Free: Lack of Evidence

As a result, the High Court concluded that it was hard to believe these men committed the attacks and therefore quashed and set aside the convictions.Wikipedia+15Kerala Kaumudi+15DW.com+15

3. Legal Fallout: Supreme Court Reaction

  • The Maharashtra government quickly filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, calling the verdict “shocking”, but chose not to seek re‑incarceration of the acquitted.Wikipedia+4Scroll.in+4Facebook+4
  • On 24 July 2025, the apex court issued a stay on using the HC’s judgment as a precedent, while confirming that the accused could be released if no other cases apply.The Times of India+2www.ndtv.com+2The Economic Times+2
  • Survivors and victims’ families expressed mixed emotions—some hopeful real culprits will be found, others exhausted by decades-long proceedings.The Times of India

4. Connection to the Markaz COVID Case: Pattern of Targeting

While entirely separate from the 2006 blasts, the Nizamuddin Markaz case during the COVID‑19 outbreak reflects similar patterns: blanket accusations, communal framing, and eventual acquittals.

  • In March 2020, a large gathering at Delhi’s Nizamuddin Markaz mosque became a COVID “super-spreader” event.
  • Media and authorities stoked fear, calling attendees “corona jihad”. Yet later courts—including the Delhi HC and Bombay HC—quashed FIRs and charges for lack of evidence, noting many accused had never even attended the event.YouTube+14Wikipedia+14The Times of India+14Al Jazeera+1Al Jazeera+1
  • Courts acknowledged political misuse of FIRs and charges to scapegoat Muslims during crisis.Wikipediachapman.edu

5. Is This a Targeted Setup to Frame Muslims?

Given both cases involve Muslim individuals, weak evidence, and state-media narratives, multiple observers see a common thread:

  • In the Markaz case, the courts specifically noted that “political government tries to find the scapegoat when there is pandemic or calamity” and accused media of conspiracy theories.The Times of India+15Wikipedia+15The Times of India+15
  • In the Bombay High Court’s recent statement, it flagged systemic flaws in ATS investigation and noted the danger of false closure, rightly warning that framing an innocent can leave true threats at large.The Times of India+1The Times of India+1
  • Independent commentators have labelled the original terrorist labels as communal weaponization, often aimed at damaging Islam’s image.WikipediaWikipedia

The pattern reveals weak or coerced evidence, political pressure to create visible outcomes, and media amplification of Islamophobic stereotypes—despite courts repeatedly ruling these were fabricated or unsupported cases.

6. Government: Primary Accountability

Failure Level: High

  • Rushed arrests under political pressure after the 2006 blasts.
  • In the Markaz case, top ministers publicly blamed the Tablighi Jamaat without full facts.
  • Policy misuse of laws like MCOCA (in Mumbai) and Epidemic Act (in Markaz).
  • Lack of oversight and pressure on investigative agencies to “solve” high-profile cases quickly.
  • Political narratives often amplified communal angles.

🛑 Conclusion: The government set the tone and may have used law enforcement for optics, not justice.

7. Investigative Bodies (Police/ATS):

Failure Level: Very High

  • In both cases, evidence was fabricated or poorly gathered.
  • No forensic trail, unreliable witness testimonies.
  • Confessions were allegedly extracted through torture or coercion.
  • Courts criticized the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in the Mumbai case for serious lapses.
  • FIRs in the Markaz case were filed without factual verification.

🛑 Conclusion: These agencies failed in their core duty — to uphold law with integrity.

8. Media: Irresponsible and Dangerous

Failure Level: Extremely High

  • During both cases, prime-time media vilified Muslims, using phrases like “Corona Jihad” or linking religion with terrorism.
  • No fact-checking, just sensationalism and TRP-chasing narratives.
  • In Markaz case, media misreported foreign attendees, even after court cleared them.
  • Some coverage incited communal hatred and normalized bias.

🛑 Conclusion: The media not only failed in its journalistic role — it became an accomplice in defaming a community.

Final Verdict: A Shared Collapse of Institutions

But the biggest burden lies with:

  • 🟥 Government (for politicizing tragedy)
  • 🟧 Investigative agencies (for shoddy or manipulated probes)
  • 🟨 Media (for creating Islamophobic public opinion)

All three worked in tandem, directly or indirectly, to frame Muslims without evidence — and courts have now exposed that.

If justice hadn’t caught up, innocent people could have died in jail for crimes they never committed — while the real perpetrators walk free.

9. Consequences and Broader Implications

  • For the accused: many spent nearly two decades in jail, including one who died in prison, only to be declared innocent.WikipediaThe Times of India
  • For victims and families: many ask, “If not these accused, then who was responsible?” Questions remain unanswered.www.ndtv.comThe Times of India
  • Judicial trust: these verdicts expose frailties in investigative agencies and signal urgent need for reforms in evidence standards, interrogation methods, and media responsibility.
  • Public discourse: It highlights how communal bias can distort justice, when state power, law enforcement and media work in tandem to tarnish the reputation of an entire religious group.

10. Conclusion: When Justice Finally Prevails

The Mumbai blasts verdict, paired with the Markaz COVID acquittals, underscores a deeply troubling fact: Muslims were often quick scapegoats in high-profile crises with little real proof. Courts eventually corrected some outcomes, but not before lives were ruined.

At every step, from flawed confessions to unreliable witnesses, from media frenzy to political narrative, the message is clear: Islam and Muslims were defamed, not defended. And justice, though delayed, laid bare the core truth—evidence matters more than prejudice.

These cases should remind us always to question official stories, demand transparency, and resist hasty verdicts shaped by religion, not facts.

Key Takeaways

This article lays out one clear message: truth ultimately prevails when courts dare to challenge institutional bias. While the pain remains for victims and wrongfully accused, the verdicts offer a small victory for justice in a system that too often bends under communal pressure.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR