From accused to Brigadier: Col Shrikant Purohit’s promotion revives Malegaon blast case debate
New Delhi: The Indian Army has promoted Colonel Shrikant Purohit, one of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, to the rank of Brigadier, despite the case’s long and controversial legal history and concerns raised by legal observers over the credibility of the final acquittal.
According to Kashmir Media Service, Col Purohit, who was among the six accused in the Malegaon blast case, was later acquitted by a special NIA court in a verdict that has drawn scrutiny and criticism from sections of legal analysts, who have questioned the consistency and handling of the trial process. Critics also argue that the judiciary has become increasingly vulnerable to political pressure since the Modi government came to power.
Col Purohit was due to retire on March 31, but the Armed Forces Tribunal had stayed his retirement pending consideration of his plea seeking promotion, citing alleged career setbacks due to the prolonged legal proceedings. With this elevation, he is set to receive an extension of at least two years in service, as Brigadiers retire at the age of 56, compared to 54 for Colonels.
Col Purohit had approached the tribunal claiming that his career progression was adversely affected due to the prolonged trial in the Malegaon blast case, which kept him under legal and administrative cloud for years.
The 2008 Malegaon blast, which took place on September 29 in Maharashtra, killed six people and injured nearly 100 others after an explosive device planted on a motorcycle detonated near a mosque.
Purohit, then a Lieutenant Colonel, was arrested by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) before the case was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). He was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2017 and rejoined service but remained under suspension until 2020.
The case also saw the involvement of other accused, including BJP leader Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, and was widely debated for years over investigative lapses, shifting charges, and what critics describe as a politically influenced legal trajectory, culminating in a verdict that continues to remain controversial in public discourse.
