Delhi Car Blast — Latest Updates

Delhi car blast — latest updates and what we know about the suspects

By Intimate Viewpoint

On the evening of 10–11 November 2025 a powerful explosion ripped through a busy street close to the Red Fort in Old Delhi. The blast — which tore apart a Hyundai i20 and caused multiple secondary fires and damaging debris across a crowded area — left a double-digit death toll and dozens injured, immediately jolting the capital and prompting a nationwide security response. 

Suggest to read:

Car Blast Near Red Fort Delhi on Monday 10 November 

In the 72 hours since the blast, investigators have treated the case as a terrorism incident, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has taken command of the probe, and police and intelligence agencies across multiple states have begun a complex sweep for co-conspirators, vehicles and explosive caches. This article pulls together the most reliable public reporting to date about what happened, what the investigation has found, and the names and profiles of suspects who have been identified or detained. 

What happened (short timeline)

Authorities say the explosion occurred during early evening traffic near the Red Fort Metro station — a densely populated area and a sensitive national monument. Initial emergency responses included multiple trauma teams, bomb-response units and rapid cordoning of the site. Hospitals near the blast site received critically injured people and a number of fatalities. Within a day, the central government invoked anti-terror powers and the NIA formally took over the investigation, a step that enables wider powers for searches, seizures and interstate cooperation. 

Reported death and injury figures have varied during breaking coverage as identification proceeded; several outlets reported a rising death toll and multiple people critically injured. Authorities have been conducting DNA and forensic tests on remains and vehicle fragments to establish identity and to reconstruct the sequence of events. 

Who the investigators say was involved — names, links and roles

A number of names and person profiles have surfaced in official and media reporting. Not every detail is yet independently verified by court record; much of the information in the first few days comes from police and investigative sources. The major names reported so far are:

Dr. Umar (Umar Un Nabi / Umar Mohammad / Dr Umar Nabi) — Identified by police as the individual who was behind the wheel of the Hyundai i20 that exploded. DNA testing on remains recovered from the blast site has been reported to match family samples, and police sources say CCTV and other evidence mapped his movements across Delhi in the hours before the explosion. Investigators have called him the prime suspect or the “bomber” in initial coverage and traced aspects of the logistics — for example, his alleged use of other vehicles and routes — through CCTV and vehicle-forensics leads. Authorities also raided addresses connected with him. 

Dr. Muzammil (Muzammil Ahmad Ganai, reported) and Dr. Adeel (Adeel Majeed Rather, reported) — Reporting from several Indian outlets says both are medical professionals from Jammu & Kashmir who were arrested in connection with discovery-type raids in Faridabad and Pulwama that recovered large quantities of explosive precursors, weapons and bomb-making materials. Police allege they rented accommodation in the NCR region that was used to store explosive ingredients and components. These names appear in multiple Indian outlets summarising the raids and arrests. 

Additional accused named in reporting — Local media reporting has included references to people with names such as Umar Un Nabi, Dr. Shaheen and others who are said to have been part of a module or network. Some outlets report that a group used encrypted communication platforms (Signal) and that money was raised and passed between members to finance operations. These details are being investigated for links to the blast and to possible wider plotting. 

It is important to stress the difference between initial police/source claims reported by the press and judicially proved guilt. Many of these reports explicitly cite police or unnamed investigators; formal charges, court filings and evidence disclosure will determine legal responsibility in the weeks and months ahead.

Arrests, raids and large seizures

In the immediate aftermath of the blast, police and paramilitary units executed coordinated raids that officials said recovered very large quantities of explosive materials (reports cite figures in the order of tonnes of material or hundreds to thousands of kilograms of ammonium nitrate and related components), weapons and electronic components used in improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Some of the seizures were reported from rented houses in Faridabad and other locations allegedly linked to suspects from Jammu & Kashmir. Multiple people were detained for questioning; the investigation has included local police, state police forces in Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir, and the NIA. 

Media reporting described one large cache as “about 2,900 kg” of explosives and related material recovered from addresses said to have been rented by a doctor from Pulwama. Those figures — if confirmed in court filings and forensic lab reports — would reflect one of the more substantial seizures of explosive precursors in recent years. Authorities have said lab analysis will be used to show whether recovered material was the same type used in the blast. 

Motive, network and alleged planning

Investigative sources quoted by national media allege the blast was part of a broader plan by a cell to carry out multiple coordinated vehicle-borne explosive attacks across several cities. Some outlets report intelligence indicating preparation to rig dozens of vehicles (figures such as 32 vehicles have been mentioned in reporting), and claims that terrorists planned to operate in small teams across different urban centers. Reporting also describes attempts to acquire bulk fertilizer (a common precursor for homemade explosives) and to prepare multiple vehicles for use. Investigators are tracking financial transfers, encrypted messaging groups and vehicle purchase histories to map the logistical chain. 

Indian security sources have also suggested possible links to extremist groups operating out of Pakistan-administered regions, naming groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) in early statements. International wire services and Indian outlets reported that authorities were considering whether arrested suspects had ties to known militant organisations; that line of inquiry is part of intelligence-sharing and is subject to confirmation through interrogation and forensic tracing. The invocation of anti-terror statutes indicates the state considers the incident to be more than a lone actor crime. 

Digital and financial trail

Reporting indicates investigators are following several non-technical and digital trails:

Vehicle purchases and ownership traces — The i20 used in the blast was reported to have been purchased cheaply through second-hand channels; investigators are tracing prior ownership and the chain of custody for cars found near the scene (a red EcoSport and other vehicles have featured in reporting). 

Encrypted communications — Police say Signal groups and other encrypted comms were identified during searches; these are being forensically analyzed to map contacts, fund transfers and instructions. One report said suspects raised about ₹20 lakh between them and handed money to a named individual as part of the logistics. 

CCTV mapping and DNA — Authorities have relied on CCTV networks to trace the suspected driver’s route across the city and on DNA testing to identify remains when visual identification was impossible. Multiple outlets report ongoing DNA matches and family sample testing. 

What authorities have said publicly (and what remains unconfirmed)

Senior ministers and security officials have publicly expressed shock, vowed the strictest punishment for perpetrators and urged calm while investigations continue. The government’s invocation of anti-terror law and the NIA takeover signals the seriousness with which officials are treating the incident. Internationally, the blast has fuelled diplomatic sensitivity given reporting of alleged cross-border links; however, concrete evidence of state-sponsored involvement has not been publicly demonstrated. 

At the same time many operational details remain subject to forensic confirmation. Open questions include: the exact construction and initiation mechanism of the device in the i20; whether the explosion was a suicide attack or a remotely/externally triggered device; how many people were directly involved in assembling and placing the device; and whether all arrested/detained individuals were directly part of the attack or part of a broader support network. Investigative agencies will need to present forensic reports, call records, financial transaction logs and witness statements to move from allegation to prosecution.

Legal process and human-rights safeguards

Because many of the early actions and identifications have been reported via police sources and media leaks, civil-liberties and legal experts typically caution against immediate assumptions of guilt. In terrorism probes there is often a tension between rapid operational needs (searches, detentions) and procedural safeguards (right to counsel, judicial oversight of prolonged detention). Once charge-sheets are filed, the evidence available in court will be the public test of the investigative narrative. The NIA’s role will include framing charges under anti-terror legislation when the agency files cases. 

What to watch next

1. Formal charge-sheets and NIA updates: The NIA is expected to file a first information report and then a charge-sheet in the coming weeks if sufficient evidence is collected; the content of those documents will be decisive. 

2. Forensic lab results on explosive composition: Matching materials seized in raids to residue from the blast will be crucial to link caches to the incident. 

3. Court proceedings for those detained: Arrests must be followed by remand hearings and eventual charges; public records from courts will confirm who is formally accused. 

4. Intelligence sharing and cross-border diplomacy: If links to transnational groups are strengthened, expect diplomatic and security responses, but such findings require careful evidentiary backing. 

Final note — reporting vs. proof

This article draws on multiple contemporaneous news reports and official statements. Early reporting in the aftermath of a violent incident necessarily contains fragments, provisional identifications and investigative leads. The names and allegations cited above come from police and investigative sources quoted by reputable outlets; still, the legal standard of proof requires a thorough, documented chain of evidence in court. Readers should treat initial identifications and alleged group links as subject to confirmation through formal charge-sheets and judicial processes. 

Sources: reporting from major Indian and international outlets including Reuters, The Guardian, NDTV, Times of India, Al Jazeera and related coverage summarising police and NIA statements. (See in-text citations for specific articles.)