The Bombay High Court quashed a 2018 special court order directing authorities to share confidential records with 26/11 accused Abu Jundal, calling his request a “fishing and roving inquiry.” The court said the demand was a belated and tactical move unrelated to the main terror case.
Calling the request a “fishing and roving inquiry,” the Bombay High Court has cancelled a 2018 special court order that had directed the Delhi Police, Ministry of Civil Aviation, and Ministry of External Affairs to produce confidential documents for 26/11 accused Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal.
Ansari is accused of training the 26/11 Mumbai terrorists in Hindi and local mannerisms to help them blend into the city.
ALSO READ: Delhi Lawyers Call Strike on Nov 6 Over Advocate’s ‘False’ Murder Case Implication
The High Court, in its detailed 36-page judgment made available on Tuesday, observed that the trial against Ansari had remained stayed since 2018 because of the lower court’s order.
A division bench of Justice R. N. Laddha allowed the petitions filed by the Delhi Police, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and the Ministry of External Affairs challenging the trial court’s directive.
With this ruling, the trial against Abu Jundal — one of the key accused in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks — will now resume after being stalled for seven years.
The documents sought by Ansari were related to the procedure followed during his arrest and the process of bringing him under Indian jurisdiction.
These included passports of Delhi Police officers who travelled to Saudi Arabia, the passenger manifest of a Jet Airways flight from Dammam to Delhi, an emergency travel document issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, and related immigration records.
Representing the petitioners, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta argued that the requested documents were “unrelated to the substantive charges” and would only “derail the proceedings.”
He said the records were neither “necessary” nor “desirable” for determining the case and were meant to “introduce extraneous contentions” into the trial.
The High Court agreed with these arguments, observing that the trial court
“ought not to have invested time in passing an absolutely unsustainable order which is nothing but a fishing and roving inquiry at the behest of the accused.”
Justice Laddha further emphasized the need for speed and efficiency in cases involving serious crimes, stating that timely trials are essential for justice and accountability.
Ansari had claimed that he was unlawfully detained by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell in Saudi Arabia in June 2012 and then forcibly brought to India. However, according to the Special Cell, Ansari was arrested near Delhi Airport where he was found loitering.
The High Court stated that the location of the arrest “loses significant relevance to the proceedings once the accused is in lawful judicial custody and has the full opportunity to defend himself,” especially when such an issue is raised belatedly.
The court further recorded that Ansari’s custody had been handed over to the Mumbai Police after proper legal procedures, and no allegations were made about irregularities during that transfer.
Referring to Ansari’s assertions about his alleged wrongful confinement, the court said,
“It is thus clear that the assertions made by respondent 2 (Ansari) about his alleged wrongful confinement have nothing to do with the trial of the present offence (26/11 terror attacks).”
It added that Ansari had
“not made any allegations with regard to his custody being handed over to the Mumbai Police in July 2012.”
The High Court also noted that Ansari had not raised any objections regarding his arrest before the magistrate in Delhi when he was first produced for remand.
The bench said,
“The Mumbai Police secured custody of Ansari legally after securing an order from the competent court in Delhi,”
Justice Laddha described Ansari’s demand for the documents as a
“belated and tactical maneuver lacking any substantive justification.”
The court said the accused is facing trial for offences stemming from the
“heinous and unprecedented terrorist attacks perpetrated in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, which resulted in extensive loss of lives and posed a grave threat to national security.”
The High Court stated in its judgment,
“The accused is alleged to have actively conspired in the commission of an offence of a grave nature that has profoundly impacted the sovereignty and integrity of the nation,”
It found that the trial judge had “completely misdirected itself” by invoking a section of the Criminal Procedure Code to compel the production of confidential documents from third parties.
Clarifying the law, the High Court said that the relevant section of the CrPC
“neither confers upon the accused nor empowers the court to initiate a speculative or exploratory inquiry into the place of arrest,” especially when such an inquiry has “no rational nexus to the adjudication of guilt.”
Tushar Mehta further argued that Ansari had not challenged the legality of his arrest at any point during remand or judicial custody but did so belatedly during the trial.
He reiterated that the requested documents were limited to procedural aspects of arrest and were not connected to the actual charges in the 26/11 case. Mehta cautioned that producing such documents
“would serve no purpose and would instead facilitate a roving and fishing inquiry.”
He also highlighted that
“matters of national security are not within the purview of judicial review and only the executive is best positioned to determine what constitutes national security.”
Mehta maintained that the location and manner of Ansari’s arrest were
“extraneous and bear no relevance to the determination of his guilt or innocence in the case.”
On the other hand, Ansari’s counsel, Yug Chaudhary, claimed that his client had been residing in Saudi Arabia and was detained by local authorities before being handed over to Indian officials. He argued that these procedural details were significant to establish the circumstances of Ansari’s arrest.
Abu Jundal, also known as Zabiuddin Ansari, is accused of being a key handler in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Investigators allege that he trained the ten Pakistani terrorists involved in the attack, teaching them Hindi and details about Mumbai’s geography to help them blend in.
The 26/11 attacks — one of the deadliest terror incidents in India — claimed 166 lives, including several foreigners, and shocked the entire nation.
The High Court’s decision effectively removes a major obstacle in the ongoing 26/11 trial, paving the way for proceedings against Ansari to continue after years of delay.
Click Here to Read More Reports On 26/11 Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
