Bombay HC Rips Apart 26/11 Handler Abu Jundal’s Plea for Cops’ Travel Records That Stalled Trial Since 2018

Can terrorists like Sayyad Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, one of the alleged masterminds of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, demand to see flight tickets and passport copies of the police officers who allegedly brought him to India? The Bombay High Court has said no, calling it a “fishing inquiry” and putting an end to what it saw as a seven-year-long distraction in the 2008 terror attack trial against him.

The bench of Justice R.N. Laddha on November 3, 2025, set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai that had directed the Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Civil Aviation, and Delhi Police to hand over travel documents related to the arrest of Abu Jundal.

The documents, including the passports of Delhi Police officers, immigration records, and the passenger list of a Jet Airways flight from Saudi Arabia to Delhi, were sought by Jundal to prove that he was deported from Saudi Arabia, not arrested outside Delhi airport as claimed by the prosecution.

But the High Court wasn’t convinced. “The trial court completely misdirected itself,” Justice Laddha said, noting that the place of Jundal’s arrest had no bearing on his guilt in a case involving “grave offences that shook the nation".

Court added that such applications only delayed a trial that had already been “stuck since 2018".

Jundal faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Arms Act, and other anti-terror laws for allegedly guiding and training the 26/11 attackers from Pakistan via internet calls. He was arrested in 2012, with the prosecution claiming that Delhi Police nabbed him outside the IGI Airport.

The accused, however, told the trial court that he was picked up from Saudi Arabia, detained there for months, and officially deported to India on June 20, 2012 on a Jet Airways flight. To support his claim, he filed five applications under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), asking the government to produce travel and immigration documents.

The trial court accepted his plea and directed the ministries to submit the records. That order, however, was challenged by the Union government and Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who argued that the accused was trying to 'turn a terror case into a travel dispute'.

SG Mehta told the court that Jundal had never objected to his arrest before any magistrate when he was first produced in Delhi or later sent to Mumbai. “This late-stage attempt to question how he was brought to India is not just irrelevant. It’s an effort to derail the trial,” he argued.

Backing the Centre’s stand, the High Court said that Section 91 CrPC does not grant an accused “an unlimited right” to demand any record he wishes. The provision, the court said, can only be invoked if the documents are “necessary or desirable” for deciding the case, which was clearly not the situation here.

“The location of his arrest,” the court said, “is wholly immaterial to his right to defend himself". Justice Laddha also noted that even if there were procedural irregularities, they would not invalidate the ongoing trial or affect its outcome.

Calling the special court’s order 'unsustainable' and 'a misuse of judicial time'. the High Court quashed it entirely, clearing way for the long-stalled 26/11 trial against Jundal to finally proceed.

"Once it is admitted that the arrest of Respondent No.2 is lawful, so far as the present sessions trial is concerned, 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/ Respondent No.2," court stated.

Case Title: Delhi Police through DCP, Special Cell and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another with connected matters

Order Date: November 3, 2025

Bench: Justice R.N. Laddha