The State of Maharashtra v. Mohd Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh & Ors.

September 30, 2025

109

Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court’s Acquittal in 7/11 Blasts Case

Abstract

The Supreme Court of India has stayed the Bombay High Court’s decision to acquit all twelve accused in the 2006 Mumbai suburban train serial bombings (7/11 blasts) in July this year. The trial court in the case had convicted all twelve accused in 2015 and awarded the death penalty to five of them and life imprisonment to the remaining seven accused.

The Bombay High Court had overturned the 2015 verdict and acquitted all 12 accused. Several weak and unreliable evidence, including coerced statements of witnesses and flawed testimony of eyewitnesses, were cited as a major reason for the acquittal. Soon after the judgment, the State of Maharashtra challenged the acquittal in the Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution.

This article examines in detail all the constitutional, legal, and evidentiary aspects of this particular case. In which special attention has been given to an analysis of the interaction of various provisions of MCOCA, UAPA, IPC, and the Indian Evidence Act, and the constitutional role of the Supreme Court under Article 136.

Introduction and Background

Bombings on seven suburban trains in Mumbai on 11 July 2006 killed more than 180 people and injured over 800. One of the most devastating terrorist attacks in the history of India was the 7/11 Mumbai serial train bombings in 2006. A total of 187 people were killed and 824 were injured in this incident.

The investigation and prosecution have relied upon the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with special laws like MCOCA and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 also known as UAPA, to complete the investigation.

The convictions by the trial court in 2015 represented a significant demonstration of the power of the state under the special laws. A trial court convicted twelve accused in 2015, awarding the death penalty to five and sentencing the other seven to life imprisonment.

The acquittals by the Bombay High Court in July 2025 reflected judicial scepticism about coerced confessions, delayed identification parades (TIPs), and evidentiary anomalies.

The Bombay High Court on 21 July 2025 noted serious flaws in several evidence, undue reliance on confessions, and flawed investigation procedures and acquitted all twelve convicts. Just three days later, on 24 July 2025, a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh stayed the retrospective effect of the High Court’s 21 July 2025 judgment and then passed a judgment allowing the acquitted persons to remain free.

The Supreme Court also stayed the retrospective value of the judgment while issuing notice on the State’s appeal. Now, after the acquittals, all the accused stand acquitted, but the reason for the stay is that the High Court judgment can no longer be used as a precedent in any future case.

Literature Review

MCOCA – Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

Enacted to tackle organized crime syndicates and terrorism.
Section 18: Deals with admissibility of confessions made to police officers of a certain rank, such as Additional SP.
Extended detention and stringent bail provisions under Sections 25-26, deviating from ordinary criminal jurisprudence under the Evidence Act.

UAPA – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Sections 2 & 15: Broad definitions of “unlawful activity” and “terrorist act.”
Section 43D(5): Restrictive bail provisions.
Provides for long-term detention for effective investigation.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 302: Murder
Section 307: Attempt to murder
Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy
Section 121: Waging war against the Government of India

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Governs trial procedure and appeal mechanism.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Establishes standards of admissibility and reliability.

Key Questions Raised in This Case:

To what extent can or cannot a special law like MCOCA and UAPA raise evidentiary standards?
Can or cannot coerced confessions be a ground for conviction?
How should courts balance individual liberty and state security in terrorism cases?

Evidence and Judicial Reasoning

High Court’s Reasoning in Acquittal

Unreliable Testimony: Eyewitnesses gave inconsistent statements and delayed TIPs.
Faulty Confessions: Many were coerced and retracted under MCOCA.
Broken Chain of Evidence: No unbroken link established between accused and crime.
Investigative Flaws Exposed: Manipulated records and suppressed leads.

Supreme Court Intervention

Limited stay by Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh.
Judgment Value Suspended: High Court ruling not to be cited in other MCOCA/UAPA cases.
No Re-arrest: Accused remain free, as no demand was made for their custody.

Legal Principles at Stake

Article 136 – Constitution: Grants discretionary power to Supreme Court for special leave petitions.
Admissibility of Confessions: Tension between Section 18 of MCOCA and Sections 25-26 of Evidence Act.

Analysis and Discussion

Evidence Standards in Terrorism Prosecutions

Highlights recurring dilemma: special laws maximize prosecutorial powers but weaken safeguards.
Bombay HC insisted on credible evidence, leading to acquittals.

Broader Implications of MCOCA Jurisprudence

Maharashtra argued High Court reasoning could harm other MCOCA prosecutions.
Supreme Court’s stay preserved legal stability until final verdict.

Striking a Constitutional Balance – Article 21 & State Security

Article 21: Protection of life and liberty.
Case reflects balancing individual rights and collective security.

Judicial Approach to Terrorism Trials and Case Law Analysis

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 – Preventive detention laws upheld.
PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301 – Safeguards against phone tapping.
State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253 – Confessions accepted but procedures stressed.
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shah (2008) 13 SCC 5 – MCOCA upheld.
Mohd. Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 – Accepted electronic evidence in terror trials.
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1 – Validity of death penalty in 1993 bombings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the 7/11 bombings case represented a turning point in Indian counter-terrorism jurisprudence. The Court has protected the sanctity of pending terrorism-related cases and safeguarded the process as well as the liberty of all those acquitted.

The Bombay High Court’s acquittal underscores the need for credible evidence and fair trial principles, while the Supreme Court’s limited stay highlights judicial balancing between systemic and individual interests.

References

Cases

Kartar Singh v State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569.
PUCL v Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301.
State v Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253.
State of Maharashtra v Bharat Shah (2008) 13 SCC 5.
Mohammad Ajmal Kasab v State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1.
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1.
State of Maharashtra v Mohd Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh and Ors SLP (Crl) Diary No(s). 30177/2025, SC (order dated 24 July 2025).

Legislation

Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
Constitution of India 1950, art 136.
Indian Penal Code 1860, ss 302, 307, 120B, 121.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999, ss 18, 25–26.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, ss 2, 15, 43D(5).
Indian Evidence Act 1872, ss 25–26.

FAQs

Q1. What is the role and importance of the Supreme Court’s stay in this case?
Ans: It prevents the Bombay High Court’s acquittal from being cited as a precedent in other terrorism or MCOCA cases. This process provides protection to ongoing trials.

Q2. Are the accused acquitted in this trial back in jail?
Ans: No. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the accused are free, as the concerned state did not request their detention during the trial.

Q3. Why and for what reasons did the High Court acquit the accused?
Ans: The High Court found the prosecution’s case weak due to unreliable testimony, coerced confessions, and flaws in the investigation and acquitted the accused.

Q4. What is the role of Article 136 of the Constitution in this case?
Ans: It allows the Supreme Court to hear the state’s appeal against acquittal through a special leave petition.

Q5. What impact can this have on future terrorism trials in India?
Ans: This protects pending cases under MCOCA and UAPA from being affected by the reasoning of the Bombay High Court and also keeps alive the constitutional debate on evidentiary standards in terrorism trials.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India