A National Investigation Agency (NIA) court is set to issue summons to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Saeed, who has been named as an accused in the Pahalgam terror attack case.
The summons will direct Saeed to appear before the special NIA court in Jammu and will be routed through the Ministry of External Affairs. The court has already issued a non-bailable warrant against him.
The NIA has accused Saeed of being one of the alleged masterminds behind the April 2025 attack in Pahalgam, in which 25 tourists and a local resident were killed.
Trial could proceed without Saeed
If Saeed does not appear after all required legal procedures are completed, the court could proceed with a trial in his absence under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The provision allows courts to conduct proceedings and pronounce judgment against a proclaimed offender who has absconded to avoid the law and has no immediate prospect of being arrested.
Before a trial in absentia can begin, the court must fulfil several requirements, including issuing two consecutive arrest warrants and publishing a notice requiring the accused to appear.
At least 90 days must pass from the framing of charges before the trial can commence. If the accused does not have legal representation, the state must appoint an advocate to defend him.
Saeed named in supplementary chargesheet
The NIA named Saeed in a supplementary chargesheet filed in July, accusing him both individually and in his capacity as the head of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba and its proxy organisation, The Resistance Front.
He has been charged under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The allegations include waging war against India and participating in a conspiracy planned from Pakistan to carry out the attack.
The supplementary chargesheet builds on the NIA’s original 1,597-page chargesheet and details the agency’s allegations regarding the Pakistan-based conspiracy, Saeed’s role and the evidence gathered during the investigation.
According to the NIA, the conspiracy involved Pakistan-based handlers, foreign terrorists and local logistical support.
What the original chargesheet alleged
The NIA’s original chargesheet, filed on December 15, 2025, named seven accused, including alleged Pakistan-based handler Sajid Jatt and the banned LeT/TRF.
It also identified three Pakistani terrorists — Faisal Jatt alias Suleman Shah, Habeeb Tahir alias Jibran and Hamza Afghani — who were killed by security forces during Operation Mahadev in Dachigam in July 2025.
Two local residents, Parvaiz Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad Jothad, were arrested on allegations of providing shelter and support to the terrorists.
The accused were charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and UAPA, with the NIA invoking provisions relating to waging war against India and alleging that the conspiracy was directed from Pakistan.
The agency has alleged that the attackers selected tourists based on their religious identity with the objective of creating communal tensions and harming Kashmir’s tourism industry.
The attack took place in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025. The case was initially registered by Pahalgam Police before the Union Home Ministry handed the investigation over to the NIA.
Probe into local support network
The investigation has also focused on the alleged role of local harbourers who provided support to the foreign terrorists.
According to the NIA, the attack followed an operational pattern involving Pakistan-based handlers, infiltrated militants and local assistance for shelter, movement and logistics.
The agency has described The Resistance Front as a proxy organisation of Lashkar-e-Taiba and alleged that it was used to conceal the involvement of the Pakistan-based parent organisation.
Following Operation Mahadev, the three alleged Pakistani terrorists named in the original chargesheet were killed. The investigation has since continued to identify those allegedly responsible for planning, facilitating and supporting the attack.
A useful next step would be to track the court’s next order on the summons and whether the legal requirements for a trial in absentia are subsequently completed.
