NIA arrests four more for links with IS in 2022 Coimbatore car blast case
The arrested have been identified as Ahmed Ali, Jawahar Sathik, Raja Abdullah alias MAC Raja and Sheik Dawood. They had been allegedly radicalised by Jameel Basha, founder of Madras Arabic College who, along with his associates, were involved in recruiting youth and subtly infusing Salafi-Jihadi ideology, under the guise of imparting Arabic classes in the state, the NIA said.
The arrests followed an investigation into the car explosion on October 23, 2022 near Sangameswarar Temple. Jameesha Mubin, who died in the blast, was found to be an IS sympathiser.
NIA had earlier arrested Basha and his associates Irshath, Syed Abdur Rahman and Mohammed Hussain who were using classrooms and social media for their radicalisation activities, NIA said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Malegaon blast case rested on shifting sand: Court
MUMBAI: A day after a special Mumbai court acquitted all seven accused in the high-profile, 2008 Malegaon blast case, the 1,034-page judgment, made public on Friday, delivered a sweeping rebuke to both the agencies that had investigated the case. The collection of blast-site debris also occurred without forensic oversight, compromising evidentiary value, the judgement noted (HT Photo) 'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the judgement noted. Referring to the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that had probed the case, Special Judge AK Lahoti ruled that the case was built on 'suspicion, conjecture, and flawed assumptions', adding that 'suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof'. The acquittal of the seven accused came 17 years after a bomb exploded near a mosque at a crowded intersection in Malegaon, killing six people and injuring 95 others on September 29, 2008. It was alleged to be the result of a right-wing terror plot. Among the accused were former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt Col Prasad Purohit and Major (Retd) Ramesh Shivaji Upadhyay. In its judgement, the special NIA court highlighted serious irregularities, contradictions and procedural misconduct by the ATS and NIA. The accused had been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act. The court found the charges unsustainable due to unreliable witness testimony, inadmissible evidence and irreconcilable differences between the ATS and NIA investigations. At the centre of the case was the prosecution's claim that a right-wing extremist conspiracy, hatched by members of Abhinav Bharat in 2007-08, had led to the blast. The ATS alleged that Purohit had set up Abhinav Bharat to turn India into a 'Hindu Rashtra', procured RDX from Kashmir, and, along with others, planned the attack as 'revenge against Muslims'. They also claimed the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Thakur. The court found these theories legally untenable and procedurally compromised. A number of key witnesses either retracted their statements or contradicted themselves in court. Among them were Lt Col RK Shrivastava, who had implicated Purohit in inflammatory meetings; Major Ramesh Gadge, who described Abhinav Bharat's activities but later watered down his account; and Bhavesh Patel, Rajendra Shende and Rakesh Dhawde – all considered crucial to establishing the alleged conspiracy. Their reversal under oath proved fatal to the case. 'The NIA, despite having ample opportunity, did not take any steps against the hostile witnesses for giving false evidence before the court. This inaction raises serious questions on the commitment to secure justice,' the court said. It further noted that 'key witnesses pertaining to the conspiracy have not supported the prosecution,' leading the court to conclude that the case rested on 'shifting sand'. The contradictions between the ATS and NIA approaches drew special scrutiny. The ATS had charged the accused under MCOCA, citing continuity with previous blast cases. In contrast, the NIA's 2016 supplementary chargesheet discarded that link, sought discharge for several accused, and altogether withdrew MCOCA. The court held that this internal inconsistency corroded the credibility of the entire case: 'Two parallel investigations cannot proceed on divergent foundational premises. The contradiction between the ATS and NIA approaches creates serious doubt on the prosecution's reliability and coherence.' The court also dismantled the material and forensic evidence. Despite the gravity of the crime, the prosecution presented no fingerprints, DNA or dump-data linking the accused to the crime scene. Crucially, the court found 'nothing on record to show that Purohit had brought the RDX from Kashmir', as alleged by the ATS. Even the motorcycle alleged to belong to Thakur failed to connect her to the crime, with the court noting she had renounced material life two years prior and no longer had control over her possessions. Further procedural lapses were flagged in multiple instances. For accused Sameer Kulkarni, the court noted that his arrest-related paperwork was delayed and falsified: 'Signatures were taken on blank papers and documents were backdated. This is nothing short of manipulation of the criminal justice process'. The collection of blast-site debris also occurred without forensic oversight, compromising evidentiary value, the judgement noted. The court strongly criticised the prosecution for failing to obtain the required sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA from the competent Central government authority. 'No explanation is offered by the prosecution as to why the requisite sanction under Section 45 of UAPA was not obtained,' the court remarked, adding that the absence rendered the entire chargesheet 'void-ab-initio'. Additionally, the court ruled that the acts alleged did not meet the statutory definition of a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Retired police officer claims he was ordered to arrest RSS chief
MUMBAI: A day after a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court acquitted former BJP MP Pragya Thakur, Army officer Lt Col Prakash Purohit and five others in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, a retired police officer stirred fresh controversy on Friday, claiming former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh and his seniors in the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad had asked him to arrest Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat while investigation was underway, to bolster the 'saffron terror' narrative. Mehboob Mujawar Singh, who was then an additional commissioner of police with the Maharashtra ATS, denied the charge and said the officer, Mehboob Mujawar, was never a part of the ATS. On Friday, speaking on the phone from his residence in Solapur, Mujawar told HT that while he was working with the ATS, Singh and his seniors had directed him to arrest the RSS chief and the two wanted accused in the case, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, who allegedly planted the bomb in Malegaon that killed six people. Both Kalsangra and Dange have been at large since 2008. 'Singh and his seniors had asked me to arrest Bhagwat to create a 'saffron terror' narrative. But I did not obey the order as it was issued orally, and there was no written communication,' he said. Param Bir Singh, however, denied the allegation. 'He (Mujawar) is a disgraced policeman who is being opportunistic,' he told HT. 'Names of RSS leaders never came up in our investigation. The NIA had also examined him (Mujawar) but his claims turned out to be totally bogus.' Singh also claimed that Mujawar was never part of the ATS. 'Mr Hemant Karkare (then ATS chief) got him involved on the recommendation of then Solapur superintendent of police to help with detection (of the bomb blast case). But he never participated in the investigation and indulged in some criminal activities. I remember that some offence was registered against him in Solapur and the commissioner of police, Solapur had sacked him.' Singh added that Karkare was leading the investigation of the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, and he was additional CP, ATS, only for Mumbai. 'This investigation was not under my supervision ever. I was only assisting Mr Karkare whenever asked by him,' he said. The NIA court, in its order on Thursday, stated that Mujawar was very much 'a member of ATS team' and he had investigated the Malegaon blast case 'as per the directions of his superior officer'. Mujawar conceded that he was booked under the Arms Act and accused of having disproportionate assets, but said he was implicated in those cases after he refused to obey Singh's instructions. 'Apart from arresting Bhagwat, I was asked to show that Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, who were both killed by ATS officers and shown among the victims of the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai, were still alive,' he said. In his statement before the NIA, which took over the investigation into the Malegaon blast in 2011, Mujawar had sought a probe into the post-mortem reports of 26/11 victims and suggested that DNA samples from the two dead bodies be obtained for verification. Both Kalsangra and Dange, based in Indore, were aides of former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur. Ramchandra used to work with his brother Shivnarayan as an electronic contractor while Dange was associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and had completed a course in information technology. According to the ATS, they had planted the bomb on the motorcycle parked outside the mosque in Malegaon, which killed six people and injured 95 others. Even as the NIA has got red corner notices issued against the duo, and declared a ₹10 lakh reward for anyone who provided information relating to them, their family members have lost hopes of seeing them again. 'My elder brother Ramchandra (Ramji) Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange were detained by Maharashtra ATS on October 10, 2008. We have no information about them,' said Ramji's brother Shivnarayan Kalsangra, who too was arrested in the Malegaon bomb blast case, but was later discharged. He now works as a real estate agent in Indore. 'It was a completely fabricated case. I was arrested and was behind bars for 34 months. They planted timers at our home claiming that we had supplied timers for the bomb,' said Shivnarayan, who was arrested by ATS along with Pragya Singh Thakur. He got bail in 2011 from the Bombay high court due to lack of sufficient evidence and was discharged by the special NIA court in 2017.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Judgement in Malegaon blast case highlights contradictions in probe by NIA and ATS
Mumbai: The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court, in its acquittal order in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, has highlighted a running battle between the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the NIA, pointing out stark contradictions in their probe. (Shutterstock) The Maharashtra ATS, which probed the case from 2008 to 2011, alleged that Lt Col Prasad Purohit and the other accused formed Abhinav Bharat as a terror outfit to attack Muslims, and invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The ATS claimed that meetings to plan the blast were held in Bhopal and Nashik, and that Purohit had sourced RDX from Kashmir, assembled the bomb at his residence in Pune and handed it over to an absconding accused who fitted it on a motorcycle. The NIA, which took over the investigation in April 2011, dropped the MCOCA charges, sought discharge of several accused, and introduced significant doubts about the ATS's timeline, witness credibility, and evidence collection. It also did not support key ATS allegations regarding conspiracy, ideology, and explosive procurement. For instance, the NIA claimed that the bomb was fitted to the two-wheeler in Indore, and it was then brought to Malegaon, the 1,000-page order pointed out. 'Two parallel investigations cannot proceed on divergent foundational premises,' the court said. 'The contradiction between the approaches of the ATS and the NIA creates serious doubt on the prosecution's reliability and coherence.' The court criticised the NIA for failing to prosecute hostile witnesses for perjury and not rectifying defects in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) sanction process. 'The NIA, despite having ample opportunity, did not take any steps against the hostile witnesses for giving false evidence before the court. This inaction raises serious questions on the commitment to secure justice,' the court observed. The lack of harmony between the two premier investigative agencies had 'made the entire case speculative,' the court concluded.
