A Delhi court on Wednesday reserved orders on an application moved by Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a key accused in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks of 2008, seeking permission for a telephonic facility to speak to his family members, in the face of opposition by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) claiming that the facility could be misused to pass on information crucial to the investigation of the case.
In an in-camera hearing held before NIA judge Chanderjit Singh of Patiala House Court, the agency opposed the application moved on behalf of Rana, to talk to his family members while in custody of NIA. Rana was extradited from the U.S. after a protracted legal battle and was remanded to 18-day NIA custody on April 11. He will be produced before the court next on April 28.
The application, filed last week directly before the court, said that Rana needs to talk to his family members to inform them about his well-being and his condition while in NIA custody. The court is likely to pass its order on Thursday.
Rana stated that speaking to family was his fundamental right and that even his family members should know how he, a Canadian citizen, is being treated under custody in India.
ALSO READ | In NIA custody, Tahawwur Rana demands 3 things – Quran, pen and…
His plea suggests that he was provided a similar facility at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles where he was lodged just before his extradition to India.
The application was argued by legal aid lawyers Piyush Sachdeva and Lakshay Dheer.
Opposing the plea, NIA lawyers – senior advocate Dayan Krishnan and Narender Mann, said that Rana is being interrogated on a day-to-day basis and investigation is at a crucial stage, even as they refused to let out specific information pertaining to the probe.
The NIA further claimed that if Rana is allowed to talk to his family members on call, he might “pass on information in code words” which can be detrimental to the probe.
The agency further expressed apprehension on the possibility of other persons being present during the telephonic conversation, who could be known to Rana and whose identities cannot be ascertained by NIA. This could lead to passing of sensitive information, the agency is understood to have told the court.
While remanding him to 18-day custody, judge Chanderjit had noted satisfaction that the agency presented “enough material” reflecting a prima facie case and the “potential role of accused”.
Rana, a 64-year-old Canadian citizen and former captain in the Pakistan army, arrived in Delhi on a special aircraft at around 6 pm on April 11 after a brief stop in Dubai. He was arrested on arrival by NIA, and was subsequently produced before the Patiala House court late that same night.
According to NIA, Rana conspired with his childhood friend David Coleman Headley, who was convicted in the US for his role in the attacks, to conduct reconnaissance of targets in Mumbai. Furthermore, the agency stated that Rana was involved in planning attacks on the National Defence College (NDC) in Delhi and Chabad House in various cities.
NIA also accused Rana of conspiring with operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Harkat-ul-Jihadi Islami (HUJI), both designated terrorist organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), along with other Pakistan-based co-conspirators.
ALSO READ | Tahawwur Rana ‘talking’ as money trail in questioning focus
The court order, seen by HT, detailed the proceedings beginning from his production in court at 10:50 pm. The court provided legal aid lawyers to represent on his behalf and recorded the same in its order. Further the order said, “Accused was also asked if grounds of arrest in writing have been supplied to him. Accused acknowledges the supply of grounds of arrest in writing.”
The NIA had stated that the case pertained to the “safety and security of the nation” and emphasised Rana’s custodial interrogation was crucial to “gather evidence to unearth the criminal conspiracy hatched in the present matter.” It had sought for 20-day remand. During this period, NIA intends to confront Rana with “relevant witnesses, forensic evidence and documents seized during the investigation and reconnaissance visits conducted by the accused and his accomplice.”
Rana’s legal aid lawyer had informed the court that he suffers from multiple ailments, including cyst in his sinus and issues with his intestine. He requested appropriate medical care for Rana while in NIA’s custody and sought proper intimation be provided to Rana’s family members about his arrest.
The court acknowledged NIA’s contentions, highlighting the “wider conspiracy” that included reconnaissance of “multiple cities including national capital and more specifically of National Defence College,” along with Chabad House in Delhi, Goa, Pushkar and Pune.
The court justified grant of 18-day custody by noting that while Section 167 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (applicable to this case) typically limits police custody to 15 days, section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) modifies this period, allowing for up to 30 days of custody.
Further, considering the gravity of the allegations and the fact that Rana is the “first accused apprehended in the present case,” the court deemed it necessary to grant NIA sufficient time for a thorough investigation.
Following the 2008 attack, Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani national and member of terror organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba, was the lone terrorist to be arrested. The attacks on that day claimed 166 lives. Kasab stood trial in a Mumbai court, and was handed death penalty which came to be upheld by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.
The order of Rana’s remand said. “Since, accused produced today is the accused who is the first accused apprehended in the present case, the investigation agency should get a fair chance to thoroughly investigate the matter so as to present before the cort complete facts in a holistic manner.”
The order further required Rana to undergo medical examinations before being produced in court again, and every 48 hours thereafter. This was ordered considering Rana’s health issues. Even the legal aid lawyer representing Rana was allowed to meet him for 30 minutes every alternate day in the presence of NIA officials, who would be standing at a safe distance that does not allow them to overhear their conversation.
Rana’s request for writing materials to instruct his counsel was allowed even as the court directed the legal services counsel not to speak to the media about the case.