According to news reports, the lawyers defending Lakhvi’s case have argued that sufficient evidence against the accused is lacking. This is despite Lakhvi being recognised as one amongst the seven prime suspects involved in the terrorist attack by four witnesses earlier. Even if there is no substantial evidence to establish their involvement and given the nature of the crime- a massacre that claimed the lives of 166 people, does not the grave nature of the crime itself deny bail to the accused? For, even if they are innocent since there is nothing to prosecute them other than the witnesses’ accounts, can’t an enquiry be ordered while keeping the accused in custody? But this is just a lay woman’s thoughts; the ultimate authority rests with the judiciary. But one need not be disillusioned by the judicial system despite being tested by the entire system in general.