Retracted confessions and delayed identification parades without independent corroborative evidence are insufficient for framing criminal charges.

The case pertains to the 2006 Malegaon bomb blasts that resulted in 31 deaths.

Initially, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and later the CBI investigated the matter, filing charge-sheets against 13 Muslim accused (A1 to A13), alleging they were SIMI members who used RDX stored in a godown.

In 2011, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the case and filed a supplementary charge-sheet projecting a contradictory theory: that the blasts were carried out by a different Hindu extremist group including the current appellants (A14 to A17).

The NIA’s case relied primarily on a retracted confession by an individual named Aseemanand and disclosure statements/spot identifications made by the appellants six years after the incident.

The Special NIA Court framed charges against the appellants on September 30, 2025, under 19 heads, including the IPC, UAPA, and Explosive Substances Act.

The appellants challenged this order seeking discharge.

1. Whether there is sufficient admissible evidence on record to proceed with the trial against the appellants under Section 227/228 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the NIA could conduct a de-novo/fresh investigation that completely contradicts the previous findings of the ATS and CBI.

3. Whether disclosure statements made in police custody and Test Identification Parades (TIP) conducted after a six-year delay hold sufficient probative value to frame charges.

The Court applied the principles of discharge under Section 227 and framing of charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that a Judge must not act as a "Post Office" but must sift evidence to ensure "sufficient ground" for proceeding.

It relied on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali regarding the impermissibility of de-novo investigation under the guise of "further investigation".

Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, which mandates that while the court doesn't conduct a mini-trial, it must discharge the accused if two views are possible and the evidence only gives rise to "suspicion" rather than "grave suspicion".

Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act were applied to exclude confessions made to police, with Section 27 restricted only to the discovery of fresh facts unknown to the agency.

The Court found that the NIA’s "new story" was fundamentally flawed as it rested on inherently weak evidence. First, the NIA relied on disclosure statements to "discover" crime scenes and bicycle shops already known to previous agencies, which fails the test of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Test Identification Parade conducted six years after the incident was deemed to have zero probative value due to the extreme delay and lack of prior descriptive features provided by witnesses.

The Court noted a fatal legal contradiction: the NIA relied on retracted statements of previous accused (A1-A13) to implicate the appellants, while the original forensic evidence (FSL reports matching RDX in A2’s godown) collected by the ATS still remained on record and directly contradicted the NIA's new theory.

The Court reasoned that a witness who provides two versions and retracts is unreliable, and the NIA failed to collect any "fresh" material, merely recycling hearsay and inadmissible custodial statements.

The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order dated September 30, 2025. Consequently, the four appellants—Manohar Narwaria, Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, and Lokesh Sharma—were discharged of all criminal liabilities.