Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ, Shyam C. Chandak, J
Rajendra Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges charges in malegaon 2006 blasts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellants contest nia evidence sufficiency. (Para 3 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. high court scrutinizes nia materials under crpc 227/228. (Para 4 , 19) |
| 4. investigation progression: maharashtra police to ats, cbi, nia. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. disclosure statements inadmissible without magistrate. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. delayed tip evidence lacks probative value. (Para 13) |
| 7. ats/cbi accused discharged; nia relies on retractions. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. irreconcilable ats-nia theories undermine prosecution. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 9. no sufficient material; appellants discharged. (Para 20 , 21) |
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ:-
These criminal appeals filed under section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (in short, NIA Act) seek to challenge the order dated 30th September 2025 framing charges against the appellants in Special Case No.8 of 2013. By the said order, the Special Judge (under NIA Act), City Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai framed charges under nineteen heads against the appellants, namely, (i) Manohar Ramsingh Narwaria @ Digaria @ Sumer Thakur (ii) Rajendra Vikramsingh Chaudhari @ Dashrath @ Samander @ Badal Yadav
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
