MUMBAI, Sept. 17 -- The Bombay High Court on Tuesday raised questions about the scope of appeals against the acquittal of all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case. Such appeals cannot be treated as an "open gate for everyone", the bench comprising chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and justice Gautam Ankhad emphasised, and sought clarity on whether relatives of the deceased who have appealed before the court had testified during the trial. The court was hearing appeals filed by families of six persons killed in the blast in Malegaon on September 29, 2008. Special NIA Judge AK Lahoti, while acquitting all seven accused in the case - including former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh and army officer Lt Col Prasad Purohit - held that suspicion could not replace proof. There was no "reliable and cogent evidence" to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the special court had said in the order dated July 31, pointing at multiple loopholes in the probe. In their appeals, families of the six persons killed in the blast contended that lapses in investigation could not justify acquittal. Conspiracies of this nature are hatched in secrecy, making direct evidence rare, the appellants said, and accused the trial court of functioning like a "post office" by failing to step in when the prosecution's case faltered. The special NIA court could have summoned additional witnesses or posed questions to bring out facts, but instead permitted a "deficient prosecution to benefit the accused", the appellants said. They further alleged that the National Investigation Agency (NIA), after taking over the case from the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), watered down the allegations against the accused. The ATS had exposed the conspiracy by arresting the seven accused in 2008, and since then, no bomb attacks had occurred in minority-dominated areas across the country, the appellants said. They described the special court's judgment as "bad in law" and urged the high court to quash it. When the bench asked if the appellants had testified during the trial, their lawyer informed the court that Nisar Ahmed, the lead petitioner whose son was killed in the blast, had not done so. "If his son died in the blast, he should have been a witness. You have to indicate whether they were witnesses or not," the judges said. "This is not an open gate for everyone." The petitioners' counsel then assured the court that all details about proceedings in the trial court would be submitted during the next hearing on Wednesday....