CURRENT AFFAIRS | 15 JULY 2026
A Special NIA Court in Jammu has issued a non-bailable warrant against Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) chief Hafiz Saeed, clearing the way for his trial in absentia in the Pahalgam terror attack case — using a new power to try absconding accused that did not exist under the old Code of Criminal Procedure.
The order was passed by the Special Judge, NIA Court, on 8 July 2026, days after the National Investigation Agency filed a supplementary chargesheet naming Saeed as a key conspirator in the Pahalgam attack. In that attack, gunmen struck Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26 people (25 tourists and one local). The Resistance Front (TRF), widely assessed as a proxy of the LeT, was linked to the assault.
Hafiz Saeed resides in Pakistan’s Punjab province and is beyond the reach of Indian process. That is precisely why the case turns on the concept of trial in absentia — a trial conducted in the absence of the accused. The NIA is also expected to seek that Saeed be declared a proclaimed offender, the formal status given to an absconder who fails to appear despite a proclamation and warrants.
The decisive legal change is that trial in absentia of a proclaimed offender is now expressly codified in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, under Section 356. The earlier CrPC contained no general provision allowing a full trial and judgment against an absconding accused; BNSS Section 356 permits a court, after following safeguards, to proceed and pronounce judgment even when the accused deliberately evades justice. The related machinery — proclamation for a person absconding — sits in BNSS Section 84 (the successor to Section 82 of the old CrPC).
The offences invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), under which the LeT is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and the case is investigated by the NIA under the NIA Act, 2008. Saeed is also long accused as the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. For terror cases where the accused hides in a foreign jurisdiction, an in-absentia trial ensures the judicial process, evidence and a verdict are not held hostage indefinitely by the accused’s absence.
🏛️ Constitutional / Legal Framework
- BNSS, 2023 — Section 356: Newly codifies trial in absentia of a proclaimed offender, a general power absent from the old CrPC.
- BNSS, 2023 — Section 84: Proclamation for a person absconding (successor to Section 82, CrPC, 1973).
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): Anti-terror law under which the LeT is a proscribed terrorist organisation.
- NIA Act, 2008: Constitutes the National Investigation Agency and empowers Special NIA Courts to try scheduled terror offences.
- Proclaimed offender status: Formal declaration against an absconder who fails to appear despite proclamation and warrants.
⚖️ Why This Matters for CLAT
This item rewards precise statute knowledge under the new criminal codes. The examiner’s favourite hook is that trial in absentia is a fresh departure introduced by BNSS Section 356, unlike the old CrPC, which had no such general provision. Expect a factual question on the section, an assertion-reason item on why in-absentia trials matter when the accused is beyond Indian jurisdiction, or an application question distinguishing a proclamation (BNSS 84) from the trial-in-absentia power (BNSS 356). Tie it to the UAPA/NIA framework for terror prosecutions.
📌 Key Facts
| Court | Special NIA Court, Jammu |
| Order date | 8 July 2026 (non-bailable warrant) |
| Accused | Hafiz Saeed, LeT chief (in Pakistan) |
| Case | Pahalgam attack — Baisaran Valley, J&K |
| Casualties | 26 killed (25 tourists + 1 local) |
| Group linked | The Resistance Front (TRF), a LeT proxy |
| Trial-in-absentia law | BNSS, 2023 — Section 356 |
| Anti-terror framework | UAPA, 1967 + NIA Act, 2008 |
By invoking BNSS Section 356, the case shows how India’s new criminal codes let courts prosecute fugitive terror accused on the merits, ensuring that absence from the country no longer means immunity from trial.
🧠 Memory Aid
“356 = Saeed Tried in absentia; 84 = Proclamation before.” BNSS Section 356 supplies the new trial-in-absentia power, and BNSS Section 84 supplies the proclamation that precedes it — both under the UAPA/NIA umbrella.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
