Under strict jail manuals, court allows 26/11 plotter Rana one phone call to family
Special Judge Chander Jit Singh of the Patiala House Courts allowed the request under strict conditions. The call must follow the jail manual and will take place under the supervision of Tihar Jail authorities.
The court also requested a fresh report on Rana's health, which must be submitted within 10 days. In addition, the judge directed jail authorities to file a report clarifying whether Rana should be allowed regular phone calls going forward.
Rana, a 64-year-old businessman of Pakistani origin who holds Canadian citizenship, is currently in judicial custody. He was extradited to India after the US Supreme Court, on April 4, rejected his review plea against the extradition order.
Rana is known to be a close associate of David Coleman Headley (also known as Daood Gilani), the main conspirator behind the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks and a US citizen.
The Delhi Legal Services Authority appointed Advocate Piyush Sachdeva to represent Rana in the proceedings.
According to the NIA, David Coleman Headley, the key conspirator, had shared details of the entire plan with Rana before coming to India. Expecting possible problems, Headley had also emailed Rana with information about his personal belongings and assets.
The agency further claimed that Headley told Rana about the role of two Pakistani nationals, Ilyas Kashmiri and Abdur Rehman, who are also accused of being part of the plot.
On November 26, 2008, ten Pakistani terrorists entered Mumbai by sea and carried out a deadly coordinated attack. They targeted a railway station, two luxury hotels, and a Jewish centre. The attack lasted nearly 60 hours and killed 166 people. The court has imposed stringent conditions on the custody of Rana, as the NIA had pressed forward with its explosive claim: that Rana may have conspired to orchestrate terror attacks in cities beyond Mumbai.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Tale of 2 Mumbai blasts verdicts: Five ways in which the special MCOCA court and Bombay High Court differed
In a significant legal reversal in one of India's most closely watched terror cases, the Bombay High Court this week acquitted all 12 men who had been previously convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. The findings of the HC, based on a scrutiny of almost 44,000 pages of evidence, diverged sharply from those of the special MCOCA court that had sentenced 12 of the 13 accused in 2015. The thirteenth accused was acquitted. The two courts arrived at contrasting conclusions on several key aspects of the case – from allegations of custodial torture and the validity of test identification parades to the reliability of eyewitness testimony and confessional statements. Consider the following: THE HIGH COURT said that the truthfulness of the confessional statements – on which the prosecution had placed heavy reliance – was in doubt, as they were extracted through torture. 'Confessional statements were not found to be truthful and complete on various grounds, including some portions of the same were found to be similar and copied. The accused succeeded in establishing the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements,' the HC said. THE SPECIAL COURT had accepted all the confessions as being true. 'I have no hesitation in accepting all the eleven confessional statements made by the eleven accused as voluntary, true and trustworthy. It is settled law that the confessional statements so made under section 18 of the MCOC Act is substantial evidence. Hence, there is no legal impediment in acting upon them to draw the conclusions against their makers as well as against the coaccused named in them. There is not even a single confessional statement that is exculpatory. I have to, therefore, hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the confessional statements given by the A1 to A7 and A9 to A11 [where A stands for 'accused'] are voluntary, true and trustworthy,' the Special Court had said in its 2015 judgment. Under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), a confession made before a police officer above a certain rank is admissible as evidence. THE HIGH COURT, in its judgment, said that the accused had succeeded in establishing the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements. THE SPECIAL COURT, however, had said there was 'no evidence' for torture. 'It is very easy to make allegations of torture [in custody],' the court said, adding the allegations had been made very belatedly, and 'they have obviously come out of legal minds'. 'It is unacceptable and it does not appeal to the reason considering the alleged unbearable levels of torture for so long that not a single out of all the accused would not have complained, though duly represented by advocates, i.e., having the legal assistance. This is India where even a Pakistani terrorist gets a fair trial and fullest opportunity,' the court said. It noted that there 'is no evidence to substantiate their allegations about the torture'. THE HIGH COURT said that while the alleged connections of the accused with Pakistani mastermind Azam Cheema and members of the terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba could have been established with the help of call data records (CDRs), the prosecution seemed reluctant to provide these details. '…The reluctance of prosecution to bring the CDRs on record and destruction of the same raises an adverse inference against the prosecution,' the HC said. THE SPECIAL COURT was not that concerned about the CDRs. 'This is an inferential evidence and the CDR does not and will not show the location of a particular person at a particular place. It will only show location of the mobile handset as is admitted by the A7 in his crossexamination. Absence of calls at particular time will not raise any inference about a particular person or accused being not present at a particular place,' it said in its verdict. THE HIGH COURT looked into the examination of eight witnesses, which it categorized under four categories: taxi drivers who drove the accused to Churchgate railway station; witnesses who saw the accused planting bombs in the trains; witnesses to the assembling of bombs; witnesses to the conspiracy. The court ruled that the first category, which included two taxi drivers, were 'held to be not trustworthy and cannot be made basis for conviction'. It said that it had reached this conclusion in view of aspects such as the fact that they were silent for 100 or more days after the incident. 'We observed that both the witnesses could not get sufficient opportunity to interact, to observe and to store the face of the accused in memory. Hence, we held that their evidence is not safe to base conviction,' the HC said. THE SPECIAL COURT had a different take, especially on taxi driver Santosh Singh. 'In my humble opinion it is clear from the above discussion that the evidence of Santosh Singh, PW63, is a cogent and convincing evidence and his credibility has not been impeached during his crossexamination,' the special court said in its judgment in 2015. THE HIGH COURT also discarded the eyewitness accounts of the men who allegedly saw the accused plant the explosives in the train. 'These witnesses identified the accused in the court after more than four years. We, therefore, again examined the evidence of the witnesses to find out whether there was any special reason for these witnesses to recollect the faces of the accused after such a long period and for that we tried to find out whether these witnesses had sufficient opportunity or interact or observe or to see the accused to enable them to recollect their faces after such a long period. 'On scrutiny of evidence of PW-57 and PW-62, we do not find any such special reason or any other reason for triggering of their memory and to recollect the faces of A.1 and A.3. Therefore, on this count and the other reasons recorded, we have observed that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be made basis for conviction,' the court said. The HC also discarded the account of yet another eyewitness, Vishal Parmar, saying that he appeared to be a stock witness. 'The evidence available on record shows that he acted as a panch witness in four crimes out of which three were of DCB CID (Detective Branch, Criminal Investigation Department) and two cases were related with PI (Police Inspector) Tajne,' the HC verdict states. THE SPECIAL COURT had taken the accounts of all eyewitnesses, including Parmar, into consideration. 'The evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74, is unimpeached and a cogent evidence and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that he is a got up witness or that his evidence is fabricated. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting his testimony,' the special court judgment stated. THE HIGH COURT agreed with the defence that Shashikant Barve, who conducted the test identification parade (TIP), was not a Special Executive Officer (SEO) when he conducted the exercise, as his appointment as SEO had lapsed in July 2005, and was renewed only on November 11, 2006. The TI parade, in which the witnesses identified the accused, was conducted on November 7, 2006, when Barve was not the SEO. 'We have no hesitation to hold that on the date of T.I. Parade, i.e. 07/11/2006, Shri. Barve (PW-82) had no authority to conduct T.I. Parade, and hence, the T.I. Parades of A.1, A.3, A.12, and A.13 conducted by him vitiate and need to be discarded,' the HC ruled. THE SPECIAL COURT, however, had ruled in 2015 that Barve was an SEO when he conducted the parade. 'It cannot be said that as on the date of the test identification parade SEO Barve, PW82, was not an SEO having authority to hold the test identification parade. To my mind, no person will dare to work as such if his appointment is not in force,' the court had said.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13 minutes ago
- First Post
Pakistani delegation to visit US, State Department confirms but doesn't reveal what's on agenda
A senior US State Department official on Tuesday (July confirmed that a Pakistani delegation is scheduled to visit Washington for a bilateral meeting read more US has confirmed that a Pakistani delegation is set to visit. Representational image/Reuters A senior US State Department official on Tuesday (July 22) confirmed that a Pakistani delegation is scheduled to visit Washington for a bilateral meeting, but stopped short of saying whether the United States would play any role in resolving the long-standing tensions between India and Pakistan, particularly over Kashmir. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce responded to a question at a press briefing about Donald Trump's past offer to mediate on Kashmir, an offer the US president had linked to his claim of having helped prevent a military conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We have Pakistan who is going to be here for a bilat, and I'll participating in that, so I'm looking forward to that as well,' said Tammy Bruce. The remarks came in response to a query that linked Trump's mediation offer with the United States' stated willingness to encourage direct communication between India and Pakistan on issues such as the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). The reporter asked whether contentious matters like Kashmir would also be on the agenda. The upcoming bilateral talks follow a rare one-on-one lunch hosted by Trump for Pakistan's military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, marking a significant moment in Washington-Islamabad ties. Trump's claims on ceasefire and trade Since May 10, when Trump took to social media to announce that India and Pakistan had agreed to a 'full and immediate' ceasefire after a 'long night' of talks mediated by the United States, he has repeatedly claimed credit for defusing the crisis. He has also said on multiple occasions that he told the South Asian rivals that the United States would do a 'lot of trade' with them if they deescalated tensions. India, however, has firmly denied any American involvement in the ceasefire. Officials in New Delhi have maintained that the agreement was reached bilaterally through direct communication between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two countries. No talk of mediation, says India A long-anticipated meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Trump on the sidelines of the G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, in June did not materialise as Trump cut short his visit and returned to Washington. However, before Modi concluded his own visit, the two leaders had a 35-minute telephonic conversation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, speaking from Kananaskis, said PM Modi clearly conveyed to Trump that at 'no point' during the days following Operation Sindoor was there any discussion, at any level, on an India-US trade deal or any proposal for mediation by the US between India and Pakistan. The upcoming bilateral meeting in Washington is expected to cover a wide range of regional and strategic issues, though it remains unclear whether Kashmir will feature in the discussions. With inputs from PTI
News18
25 minutes ago
- News18
Akal Takht seeks Jul 23 to be declared Guru Nanak Jahaz Remembrance Day
Amritsar, Jul 23 (PTI) Akal Takht's officiating Jathedar, Giani Kuldip Singh Gargaj, on Wednesday called upon the Centre and the Punjab government to declare July 23 Guru Nanak Jahaz Remembrance Day. He said that on this day in 1914, under the leadership of Ghadar revolutionary Baba Gurdit Singh, a large group of Punjabis, mostly Sikhs, seeking a better future, arrived in Canada by ship. But in a grave violation of human rights, they were turned away, he said. On the 111th anniversary of the forced return of the ship from Canada in 1914, Gargaj said the episode has now been officially recognised in Canadian cities, such as Surrey and Vancouver, as Guru Nanak Jahaz Remembrance Day. He hailed the recognition as a significant step toward acknowledging historical truth and a proud moment for the Sikh community. The day commemorates a major struggle against racism, led by Baba Gurdit Singh, who in 1914 founded the Guru Nanak Steamship Company. He chartered a Japanese vessel from the Komagata Maru Company, renamed it Guru Nanak Jahaz, and challenged Canada's then racist immigration laws, he said. Gargaj said the journey from Hong Kong to Canada was 'deeply spiritual," marked by the presence of Guru Granth Sahib, Akand Panth Sahib, and the Nishan Sahib (Sikh flag) on board. Of the 377 passengers, 341 were Sikhs. He expressed regret that in India, history books still refer to the ship as Komagata Maru, despite Baba Gurdit Singh naming it Guru Nanak Jahaz, as he mentioned so in his autobiographical book 'Guru Nanak Jahaz' also. He appealed to universities, academic institutions, and gurdwara management bodies across India to correct the name of the ship to Guru Nanak Jahaz. PTI JMS CHS VN VN view comments First Published: July 23, 2025, 18:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
