The 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case has entered a new legal phase, with proceedings initiated against six Pakistan-based accused who remain outside the reach of Indian investigators. The case involves Lashkar-e-Taiba-linked figures including Hafiz Saeed and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi. Mumbai’s special court is pursuing the statutory process for proceedings in their absence under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution is expected to rely on evidence from the original investigation, including material connected to David Headley and Ajmal Kasab.
26/11 Mumbai Terror Attack Masterminds Hafiz Saeed, Lakhvi Face In Absentia Trial Under BNSS
India has started the in absentia trial of six Pakistan-based accused in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The legal process in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case has entered a crucial new phase with the trial of six Pakistani accused starting outside India.
The trial is of Lashkar-e-Taiba leaders Hafiz Saeed and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, who Indian authorities have long identified as senior members of the group responsible for the attacks.
A special court in Mumbai has issued warrants against the accused, who are absconding, to start the statutory process that has to be followed before proceedings can be continued in their absence.
BNSS Section 356 Opens A New Legal Route
Trial against proclaimed absconders is provided under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and proceedings are being pursued.
The proceedings have been taken forward with the help of Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam. Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti has also urged that action be taken on the basis of evidence available against the accused.
The six suspects named in the latest reports are Hafiz Saeed, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Sajid Mir, Abu Alqama, Asim alias Abu Qahafa and Major Abdur Rehman Pasha.
The legal machinery does not strip the accused of his right to defend himself, for the proceedings provide for the representation of lawyers and other statutory safeguards in the judicial process.
The statutory framework governing proclaimed absconders provides that the accused must appear pursuant to a proclamation of the court before the proceedings can proceed under the legal process reported.
Evidence From 26/11 Investigation Remains Central
The prosecution’s case is expected to rely on evidence collected during the investigation of the November 2008 attacks, including testimony related to American conspirator David Headley.
Prosecutors also relied on testimony and evidence about the lone surviving gunman caught during the attacks, Ajmal Kasab, who was later convicted and hanged.
Mumbai attacks were a series of attacks that took place between 26th and 29th November 2008 at many sites, which killed 166 people. They are among the deadliest terrorist attacks in India.
The attacks were conducted by a group called the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), whose handlers in Pakistan remotely directed the operation.
Hafiz Saeed is linked with Lashkar-e-Taiba internationally, while Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi is a senior operational figure in the outfit.
Also Read: Ratikant Rout Arrested by ED in Illegal Mining Money Laundering Case.
India Signals Continued Diplomatic Pressure
The proceedings are of diplomatic significance as some of the accused are still in Pakistan, where Indian authorities have repeatedly sought action against those associated with cross-border terrorism.
"India will continue to take necessary steps to fight terrorism, and the international community should understand its seriousness," Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said.
Indian officials have said a judicial finding could also bolster diplomatic efforts to press Pakistan over individuals India says have taken refuge there.
The government is also collaborating with INTERPOL for international action against fugitive accused persons, including initiatives around public notices and the overall search for wanted persons.
The development marks a significant intersection of criminal procedure, counterterrorism policy, international cooperation and India’s ongoing quest for accountability for the 26/11 attacks, for Sprouts News.
What Happens Next In The 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attack Case
The next step, therefore, is that the prosecution will have to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 356 before the prosecution formally leads its evidence against the absent accused.
The case thus could be a big test of how India’s newer criminal procedure framework works in serious terrorism cases with accused persons out of India’s immediate jurisdiction.
Any final judgment will be based on judicial assessment of the evidence, legal submissions and procedural protections, and not on the political or diplomatic considerations of the accused.
The development in and of itself does not establish the guilt of any defendant. They are entitled to legal representation and to such safeguards as are available under the law of India.
The Mumbai proceedings renew focus on whether India's courts can come up with a definitive finding when the accused are abroad and not available for physical appearance.
The eventual judicial outcome may also have implications for India’s future approach to cross-border terrorism cases, especially where suspects remain outside the reach of domestic investigative and enforcement agencies.
