Malegaon Blast, Claim of Training Link Exposed: 1 Insisting SIT Finds Malegaon Blast Accused Trained Lankesh Killers

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by Karnataka’s police to probe the 2017 murder of journalist‑activist Gauri Lankesh has made a startling assertion: suspects accused in the 2006–08 Malegaon blasts allegedly trained individuals implicated in Lankesh’s killing. This claim marks a sharp departure from earlier official denials and brings renewed scrutiny to cross‑case connections between extremist groups.

Background

Gauri Lankesh was shot dead outside her Bengaluru home on 5 September 2017. Karnataka’s SIT unearthed a conspiracy involving members of pro‑Hindutva organisations, with 18 accused formally charged in connection with her assassination. Training in firearms and bomb‑making, believed to have occurred between 2010 and 2017, has been a key aspect of the SIT’s investigations.

Karnataka SIT’s Shift: New Findings in Supplementary Chargesheet

In its initial position, the Karnataka SIT categorically denied any link between the Malegaon blast accused and the Lankesh murder case—stating in court that no evidence tied those conspirators to Lankesh’s death.

However, the SIT’s supplementary chargesheet, submitted in November 2018, disclosed witness and accused statements revealing that four “external trainers”—present at secret camps where bomb‑making and weapon training were imparted—were linked to Abhinav Bharat, the organisation accused in Malegaon and other blast cases.

Stakeholder Views

• SIT / Karnataka Police: Initially denied any connection, but later acknowledged that the four guest trainers—nicknamed “Babaji”, “Bade Babaji”, and others—were likely Abhinav Bharat members. Suresh Nair (“Bade Babaji”), Ramji Kalsangra, Sandeep Dange, and Amit Chauhan (alias Hakla) were explicitly named as bomb‑making trainers who taught recruits allegedly tied to Sanatan Sanstha.

• Critics and analysts: Highlight the inconsistency in SIT’s narrative—first denying links then documenting training ties. They flag this as symptomatic of broader extremist networks pooling resources across groups.

• Accused / Supporters: Representatives for those named in the Malegaon case have previously challenged claims as politically motivated, pointing out procedural irregularities and insufficient legal proof.

Legal and Political Context

• The Malegaon blast cases, spanning 2006 and 2008, involved multiple bombings resulting in major casualties. The accused in those cases belong to the Abhinav Bharat network, which has long been linked to extremist violence across states.

• In the Gauri Lankesh case, weapon trainers and recruits were allegedly ideologically aligned with groups like Sanatan Sanstha, Sri Rama Sene, and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti. Recruiters like Amol Kale and Rajesh Bangera allegedly led training camps and target selection.

• The SIT’s supplementary filings reflect an evolving position, which may play a key role in future legal proceedings.

Evidence and Expert Findings

• Ballistics analysis has linked the gun used in Lankesh’s killing with prior murders (e.g. Kalburgi, Dabholkar, Pansare), hinting at the involvement of one organised group.

• Statements from three accused in the Lankesh case and four witnesses identified the participation of “guest trainers” at 19 training camps across India between 2010–17. Five of these camps included bomb‑making modules reportedly led by the four Abhinav Bharat-linked trainers.

• Identification of trainers: Suresh Nair was detained by Gujarat ATS in November 2018. Sketches and interrogation suggested Nair’s association with other fugitive trainers Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, both facing charges in the Malegaon blasts case.

Current Status

• The main trial in the Lankesh murder continues in a special court in Bengaluru; many accused remain out on bail. A key witness recently testified that he faced threats before appearing in court, though no FIR has yet been filed regarding attempted intimidation

• Meanwhile, in the Malegaon blast case, a recently acquitted accused, Sameer Kulkarni, has alleged that the Maharashtra ATS and senior politicians manipulated evidence, suggesting deeply partisan pressures over years.

• The Karnataka SIT’s findings also bring to light a concerning trend in the functioning of extremist ecosystems: the use of covert ideological indoctrination followed by tactical training across various locations in India. According to the SIT, multiple training camps were held under the guise of religious or cultural workshops, where recruits were first exposed to ideological material vilifying perceived enemies of the Hindu faith. These events reportedly transitioned into weapon familiarisation, target practice, and small-scale explosive-making exercises. The pattern suggests a calculated strategy not just to radicalize individuals, but also to equip them with the means and discipline to carry out targeted assassinations, often months or years after their training.

  This development has amplified concerns about sleeper cells and the continuity of ideological violence across different incidents. While each case—from Malegaon to the murder of Gauri Lankesh—has distinct operational characteristics, investigators now find overlapping personnel, shared training resources, and a common ideological framework binding them. This convergence of logistical and philosophical networks complicates the prosecutorial process, especially when the accused are scattered across states and governed by different jurisdictions. The possibility that extremist trainers involved in bombings a decade ago could influence or instruct more recent operatives presents a persistent national security threat.

  Moreover, the acknowledgment of connections between Malegaon blast accused and Gauri Lankesh’s killers challenges the official narrative that these events were isolated. It compels a reevaluation of the scope and direction of investigations into right-wing extremist groups. While security agencies have long asserted that some groups acted independently, the SIT’s supplementary findings reveal a shared infrastructure, particularly in training and recruitment. That these groups operated discreetly for years suggests both an intelligence lapse and a legal blind spot—one that requires systemic reform in how such threats are identified and neutralised at early stages.

  The political ramifications are also significant. The initial refusal by the Karnataka SIT to accept a link between the two cases—followed by a silent reversal in their own supplementary chargesheet—raises questions about external influence, public pressure, and bureaucratic restraint in sensitive investigations. Political parties on both sides of the ideological spectrum have been accused of either shielding the accused or weaponising the cases for electoral gain. As a result, public trust in the impartiality of law enforcement agencies has come under strain, particularly when high-profile political figures are indirectly linked through the accused’s affiliations or past statements.

  Civil rights activists and the families of the victims have repeatedly emphasized that justice delayed in cases like these is justice denied. They argue that the continued evasion of key suspects such as Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange—both named in multiple terror cases—exposes a lack of political will to bring ideological terrorists to book. These individuals have managed to avoid arrest for over a decade, even as their alleged trainees continue to stand trial or remain active. The state’s inability or unwillingness to apprehend such high-priority fugitives undermines the credibility of the investigative apparatus and raises fears of selective enforcement.

  In the broader societal context, the revelations have reignited the debate over how India defines and prosecutes terrorism. While Islamist radicalisation is frequently and publicly condemned, incidents involving right-wing violence often see delayed or diluted responses. The terminology used—referring to Hindu extremists as “fringe elements” or “hardliners” rather than terrorists—has long been a point of contention among scholars, legal experts, and human rights defenders. The Lankesh case, seen in light of this new SIT revelation, intensifies the call for a uniform definition of terrorism that includes all ideological motivations, regardless of religion or political leaning.

  Finally, these developments serve as a sobering reminder of the structural vulnerability of democratic institutions when confronted with politically motivated violence. Journalists like Gauri Lankesh, who spoke against communalism and hate speech, often work without state protection and with limited institutional support. Her assassination, far from an isolated crime, now appears part of a broader conspiracy that includes structured training, ideological indoctrination, and targeted killings. Until the state decisively breaks the nexus between hate-filled propaganda and violent execution, the space for dissent and free expression will remain under threat in India’s increasingly polarized landscape.

Expert Opinions and Analysis

• Analysts assert that the overlapping ideological and operational links between groups like Abhinav Bharat and Sanatan Sanstha reflect a pattern of resource‑sharing and pooled training infrastructure. Legal experts question the reliability of supplementary witness statements—especially given threats to witnesses and political cross-currents. They emphasise the need for corroborating forensic evidence and transparent court scrutiny.

• Civil society commentators note the broader danger of extremist networks crossing state and organisational boundaries—a trend exposed by these interlinked cases.

Timeline of Key Events

Conclusion

This emerging narrative from Karnataka’s SIT presents a compelling new dimension to the Lankesh murder case—linking suspects in a high-profile journalistic assassination to trainers associated with bombings across India. The contrast between initial denials and later disclosure of training‑camp ties underscores the intricate relationships among extremist outfits.

As the trials progress, courts will need to weigh conflicting claims, witness credibility, and the forensic record. For policymakers and civil society, the broader lesson lies in recognising how ideological violence transcends single cases or organisations. If these links are definitively established, India faces a reckoning over extremist networks that operate across states and ideologies—making coordinated, transparent investigation more urgent than ever.

Follow: Karnataka Government

Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More