‘There is a possibility of Lakhvi tampering with evidence which will affect the 26/11 case’

I am not surprised by the court order. It has only come after Lakhvi was granted bail. Lakhvi was bound to challenge the detention placed upon him, which was done to satisfy the Indian government’s agitation. This means the Pakistan court was satisfied with Lakhvi’s argument. This order was passed ex-parte. The question is why did the Pakistan government did not apply for the cancellation of his bail immediately.

The Pakistan government maintained that the lawyers in the country had boycotted case proceedings after Peshawar attack on the Army school. If that was the reason then why did they not seek an adjournment on that day, or engage a new lawyer. How can a public prosecutor boycott proceedings?

What do you think could have been done?

Instead of passing a detention order, the government should have shown some urgency in filing for the stay order of his bail. The lawyers waited for a certified copy of the order to be released before appealing against it. One can appeal in the higher court without the certified copy. The Pakistan government did not show urgency. Their lethargy in concluding the trial against him or reacting to the release has helped Lakhvi.

What lies ahead in store for both the countries after the bail order?

There is a possibility of the Lakhvi tampering with evidence which would affect the case. The court has been dragging the trial for a long time now and has maintained it in-camera proceedings. The role of the media is important in such cases to know the exact role of each of the accused. This would definitely help the other accused in the case.

The principles of arguing for the cancellation of bail are much more difficult than arguing against it when it is applied in the lower court. I have my doubts as to how the Pakistan government would fight this. The Pakistan government did not show urgency which they are now showing in the terrorists attacking them. The government makes a clear distinction between the good Taliban and bad Taliban. The terrorists attacking India are part of good Taliban and the rest are the bad ones.

What are your views on the bail order?

Where is the question of insufficient evidence against Lakhvi? He has been in custody for over five years now. If there was no sufficient evidence against him then the court should have discharged him from the case earlier, itself. The fact is the prosecution did not conduct the case efficiently. Lakhvi’s lawyer had visited India to collect evidence.

He had cross-examined the doctors and police officials in the case. The pakistan Judicial Commission had also come to Indian to collect evidence against him. Also when I had visited Pakistan along with a few other officials for the execution of Ajmal Kasab, we found that Lakhvi was not charged with conspiracy of murder of 166 persons in Mumbai.

How can India play a role in this case?

India should make a firm representation to the UNO and the Security Council against the court order. Lakhvi along with six other was arrested in December 2008 in connection with the case. The trial has been underway since 2009. A court in Islamabad had on December 18 granted bail to Lakhvi citing lack of evidence, but before he could be released from jail, the government detained him for three more months under MPO.

meghna.yelluru@expressindia.com