NIA court issues non-bailable warrant against Pakistan-based terror handler Mohammad Yaqoob
Synopsis
A Jammu NIA court has issued a non-bailable warrant against Pakistan-based terror handler Mohammad Yaqoob, accused of directing armed strikes on security forces and civilians in Kashmir. It is the second such high-profile warrant from the same court in weeks — the first targeting Hafiz Saeed over the Pahalgam massacre that killed 26 people.
Key Takeaways
A special NIA court in Jammu issued a non-bailable warrant against Mohammad Yaqoob alias Abu Sumana on 18 August under Section 35 of the UAPA .
Yaqoob allegedly directed arrested Pakistani terrorists Abdullah Rajput and Khubaib to carry out attacks on security forces and civilians in the Kashmir Valley .
His involvement surfaced during investigation into recovery of one Chinese grenade and 15 live cartridges from Mohammad Naqeeb Bhat in Srinagar .
On 8 July , the same court issued an NBW against Hafiz Saeed , 76 , chief of proscribed Lashkar-e-Taiba , in the Pahalgam terror attack case.
The Pahalgam attack on 22 April killed 26 people , mostly tourists, in south Kashmir.
A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jammu issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) on Tuesday, 18 August against Mohammad Yaqoob, alias Abu Sumana, a Pakistan-based terror handler accused of directing terrorist activities in the Kashmir Valley. The warrant was issued under Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), with the court noting that the accused is currently absconding.
Background of the Case
The NIA said Yaqoob's involvement came to light during the investigation into the recovery of one Chinese grenade and 15 live cartridges from Mohammad Naqeeb Bhat in Srinagar. According to investigators, Yaqoob allegedly provided operational directions to two arrested Pakistani terrorists — Abdullah Rajput, alias Kamran Ahmed, and Khubaib, alias Usman Jatt.
The accused reportedly instructed the two to carry out terrorist strikes in the Kashmir Valley, specifically targeting security forces and civilians. The special NIA court accepted the agency's application and issued the warrant, given the accused's continued evasion of legal proceedings.
Earlier NBW Against Hafiz Saeed in Pahalgam Case
This is not the first high-profile warrant from the same court in recent weeks. On 8 July, the special NIA court in Jammu issued a non-bailable warrant against Hafiz Saeed, the Pakistan-based chief of the proscribed terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), in connection with the ongoing probe into the Pahalgam terror attack.
That order came two days after the NIA filed a supplementary chargesheet against the 76-year-old Saeed, charging him both in his personal capacity and as the head of LeT and its proxy front, The Resistance Front (TRF). He has been booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the UAPA, 1967. According to the court order, Saeed — a resident of Sargodha in Pakistan's Punjab province — has been deliberately evading arrest. The NIA sought an open-dated NBW to enable further legal proceedings against him.
The Pahalgam Attack: What Happened
On 22 April, terrorists killed 26 people, mostly tourists, at Pahalgam in south Kashmir — one of the deadliest attacks on civilians in the region in recent years. Saeed, designated a global terrorist by both India and the United States, is also widely considered the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
What the Warrants Signal
The back-to-back non-bailable warrants against Pakistan-based operatives reflect an escalating legal strategy by Indian agencies to formally indict cross-border handlers through domestic courts, even in absentia. This comes amid heightened security operations across Jammu and Kashmir and sustained NIA activity targeting terror financing and logistics networks. Legal proceedings against absconding accused under the UAPA allow Indian courts to record findings and initiate asset-attachment proceedings even without physical custody.
Point of View
FATF proceedings, and potential asset-action moves. The Yaqoob warrant, coming weeks after the Hafiz Saeed NBW in the Pahalgam case, signals a deliberate NIA strategy of judicially naming and isolating cross-border handlers. What is less clear is what enforcement leverage these warrants generate when the accused are beyond Indian jurisdiction. The real test of this approach is whether it translates into international legal cooperation — or remains symbolic accountability.
NationPress
18 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Mohammad Yaqoob alias Abu Sumana?
Mohammad Yaqoob, alias Abu Sumana, is a Pakistan-based terror handler against whom the NIA special court in Jammu issued a non-bailable warrant on 18 August. He is accused of directing two Pakistani terrorists to carry out attacks on security forces and civilians in the Kashmir Valley.
Why was the non-bailable warrant issued against Yaqoob?
The warrant was issued under Section 35 of the UAPA after the court found that Yaqoob is absconding. His alleged involvement surfaced during the NIA's investigation into the recovery of a Chinese grenade and 15 live cartridges from Mohammad Naqeeb Bhat in Srinagar.
What is the connection between Hafiz Saeed and the NIA court in Jammu?
On 8 July, the same special NIA court in Jammu issued a non-bailable warrant against Hafiz Saeed, the 76-year-old chief of proscribed Lashkar-e-Taiba, in connection with the Pahalgam terror attack. The NIA had filed a supplementary chargesheet against him two days earlier, charging him under the BNS 2023 and UAPA 1967.
What was the Pahalgam terror attack?
On 22 April, terrorists killed 26 people, mostly tourists, at Pahalgam in south Kashmir. It is one of the deadliest attacks on civilians in the region in recent years. Hafiz Saeed, designated a global terrorist by India and the United States, is accused of involvement in the attack.
What legal action can India take against absconding accused under UAPA?
Under the UAPA, Indian courts can issue non-bailable warrants, record findings, and initiate asset-attachment proceedings against absconding accused even without physical custody. The open-dated warrants sought by the NIA enable legal action at any stage of further investigation.
