Bombay HC clears way for 26/11 mastermind Abu Jundal’s trial

The Bombay High Court on Monday, November 3, 2025, paved the way for the resumption of the trial of Abu Jundal alias Sayyad Zabiuddin, who was arrested for being one of the key conspirators of the 26/11 terror attack.

The Supreme Court overturned the trial court’s decision requesting the authorities to produce documents related to Abu Jundal’s arrest.

Abu Jundal had acted as the handler of the terrorists, including Ajmal Kasab, and was one of the planners of the attack.

Justice RN Ladda observed: “The court has completely misled itself by invoking Section 91 of the Cr.PC to compel production of documents from third parties in this regard. Section 91 of the Cr.PC does not empower an accused or authorize the court to initiate a speculative or exploratory investigation into the place of arrest, especially where such investigation has no rational connection with the determination of the matter. The legal requirement under Section 91 is: document sought.” or the thing must be ‘necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, hearing or other proceeding under the Act,’ which is conspicuously absent from the present factual matrix.” The judge added that the High Court found it difficult to accept or defend the reasoning accepted by the trial court.

Underlining the importance of timely trials, Judge Ladda said, “Due to the contested decision, the trial has been postponed since 2018. In serious crimes, timely trials are essential to ensure justice and accountability.”

The Supreme Court upheld the order, allowing Delhi Police, Ministry of External Affairs and others to challenge the trial court’s order to share travel documents with the accused.

Attorney General Tushar Mehta had alleged that Abu Jundal was a key conspirator in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack and actively participated in the planning and execution processes along with Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives. “He provided strategic inputs via VoIP from Karachi, trained the attackers and maintained operational surveillance,” he argued.

During the hearing, Abu Jundal sought various documents, including passports, flight manifests and immigration records. “These were allowed by the trial court without hearing the petitioners, violating the principles of natural justice,” the Supreme Court said.

Mr. Mehta had maintained that the accused had not previously raised any objections to the legality of his arrest. “His current attempt in this direction at a belated stage is procedurally untenable and irrelevant to the decision of the present case. It is further submitted that the documents sought by Respondent No. 2 are only relevant to the procedural aspects surrounding the arrest and are not relevant to the merits of the case. Production of such documents will not serve any legitimate purpose and will instead facilitate mobile and fishing investigation, thereby hindering expeditious conduct of trial and defeating the case. Justice ends,” he said.