📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Rishabh Tatiraju
Crime
Senior Lawyer Ujjwal Nikkam Says Sanjay Dutt’s Disclosure Could Have Averted 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blast at Indore Event
✍️ Amar Ujala · Madhya Pradesh
🗓 15 Oct 2026, 10:00 PM
👁 10
At a Sarathak Sanstha function in Indore, senior advocate Ujjwal Nikkam claimed that Sanjay Dutt’s revelation about a weapons cache might have prevented the 1993 Mumbai bomb blast.
Senior advocate Ujjwal Nikkam addressed a gathering organized by the Sarathak Sanstha in Indore on Thursday, sharing insights from his involvement in several high‑profile criminal investigations. Among the cases he discussed, Nikkam highlighted the 1993 Mumbai bomb blast, noting that the accused actor Sanjay Dutt had knowledge of a weapons cache linked to the plot. He asserted that had Dutt disclosed the location of the arms, security agencies could have intervened and potentially averted the massive explosion that claimed dozens of lives.
Nikkam, who also served as a member of the Rajya Sabha, recounted his interactions with law‑enforcement officials during the investigation and emphasized the importance of timely intelligence sharing. While he briefly referenced other incidents such as the 26/11 attacks, his primary focus remained on the missed opportunity in the 1993 case.
The remarks sparked interest among the audience, which included legal professionals, journalists, and local dignitaries. Nikkam did not provide new evidence but reiterated that the failure to act on available information was a critical lapse. The event concluded with a question‑and‑answer session where attendees sought clarification on procedural aspects of handling such intelligence.
No official response has been recorded from Sanjay Dutt or his legal team regarding Nikkam’s statements. The discussion adds to ongoing public discourse about accountability and transparency in India’s counter‑terrorism efforts.
Nikkam, who also served as a member of the Rajya Sabha, recounted his interactions with law‑enforcement officials during the investigation and emphasized the importance of timely intelligence sharing. While he briefly referenced other incidents such as the 26/11 attacks, his primary focus remained on the missed opportunity in the 1993 case.
The remarks sparked interest among the audience, which included legal professionals, journalists, and local dignitaries. Nikkam did not provide new evidence but reiterated that the failure to act on available information was a critical lapse. The event concluded with a question‑and‑answer session where attendees sought clarification on procedural aspects of handling such intelligence.
No official response has been recorded from Sanjay Dutt or his legal team regarding Nikkam’s statements. The discussion adds to ongoing public discourse about accountability and transparency in India’s counter‑terrorism efforts.