Is the competition between different agencies to crack terror cases costing innocents their future?
By A Mirsab, TwoCircles.net,
New Delhi: First there was only Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Then came the different states’ Anti Terrorists Squads (ATS). And then the big daddy of them all: the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Even as terror incidents increased across India, the last decade saw a steady increase in number of state agencies for investigation into terror incidences in their respective states. For instance, several states established ATSs while Uttar Pradesh founded the Special Task Force (STF) and New Delhi a ‘Special Cell’.
The NIA was constituted in the aftermath of the deadly 26/11 attack in 2008 to thwart terror incidences and to probe such cases providing wide range of jurisdiction to it.
On one hand, the number of such special units for terror investigation went up but on the other hand, there were always gaps between these units vis-à-vis mutual cooperation and information exchange. Moreover, there seems to a total absence of accountability. The only thing that these agencies seem to have common is that they are always on to prove to the government the raison-d’etre of their establishment by showing cases they have been cracking.
In this process, all these agencies are in a virtual competition – cracking cases or arresting prize catch. This is where innocents are getting caught in the web of false allegations leveled against them by such agencies. The recent example of clean chit by NIA to Liaqat Shah, who was termed as a Hizbul Mujahideen member by Delhi Police Special Cell, is a case in point.
And unfortunately, this is not the only instance of such goof ups by investigative agencies.
A resident of Jammu & Kashmir, Shah crossed the border in 90s. He was travelling to India as part of the government’s rehabilitation for militants under Form No 74 when the Special Cell of Delhi Police arrested him on March 20, 2013 claiming that he belonged to Hizbul Mujahideen and that he was in the national capital for carrying out terror strikes.
The NIA said in its 26 page charge sheet – submitted before the special Judge for NIA cases in Delhi – that Shah had crossed over to Pakistan, in mid-nineties, and that he was associated with an organisation called Al-Barak. In Pakistan, he married for the second and third time and had one child from the second wedlock. He wanted to come back to India under the surrender-cum-rehabilitation policy of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. He was constantly in touch with his first wife – Ameena Begum – who was still residing at Dardpura village, Lolab Valley, Jammu and Kashmir. It was apparently she who always insisted that he return to his home in Kashmir.
Shah’s second wife Naseem Bibi refused to come to India as she was suffering from many health issues while his third wife Akhtar Nissa agreed to return with him as all her family members are residing in India. Shah conveyed his consent to Ameena Begum. Pursuant to the same, Ameena Begum submitted an application at the SSP office in Kupwara in February 2011 under the surrender cum rehabilitation policy.
After the entire episode, the NIA court let him out on bail on May 17, 2013 on a surety of Rs 20,000 and on the condition that he will not leave India. The court has also asked him to report to the local police station in Kashmir’s Kupwara district every month and not to change his place of residence.
Following are more such examples of contradictory investigation by different agencies:
1. Maharashtra ATS implicated nine Muslim youths in a case of bomb blasts at a mosque at Malegaon in 2006. CBI upheld ATS investigation. Later in 2010, when Aseemanad was arrested, he confessed right wing persons were behind the blast. NIA took over the investigation and charged four Hindu youths for the blasts.
2. Maharashtra ATS arrested Abdul Samad from Bhatkal claiming that he is the person who planted bomb at the German Bakery in Pune in February 2010. He was the brother of wanted Yaseen Bhatkal. Samad’s family produced video proof of his presence in a wedding ceremony at Bhatkal the same evening. He was then let off from this blast case, although he was made accused in another case of Arms Act.
3. The very investigation of German Bakery blast then continued and ATS arrested Himayat Baig alleging to be the person planting bomb in the bakery. He was charges sheeted and trial had begun. Meanwhile, Delhi Police Special Cell arrested Qateel Siddiqui claiming he was the one – not Baig – to have planted the bomb along with Yaseen Bhatkal.
4. Incidentally, even when Baig was sentenced to death by session court of Pune based on ATS investigation in connection with the German Bakery blast, the NIA in 2014 gave him a clean chit.
5. Maharashtra ATS arrested Naqi Ahmed for his involvement in 2011 triple blasts in Mumbai. Even as ATS claimed Ahmed to be an Indian Mujahideen member, at the same time, Delhi Police Special Cell gave a clean chit to him maintaining him to be only an informer of Special Cell through whom they were tracking the absconding Yaseen Bhatkal.
6. Gujarat ATS never helped NIA in the investigation of Sabarkantha blasts in 2008, which were carried out at the same time of serial blasts in Malegaon in 2008 allegedly by right wing activists affiliated with Abhinav Bharat organisation that included army intelligence officer from Pune Col Purohit, now in jail.
7. The Gujarat ATS claimed arrested Abu Basheer (resident of Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh) to be the mastermind behind July 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts. Couple of months later Mumbai crime branch arrested 20-odd Muslim youths from Pune, Mumbai and Karnataka and claimed that Reyaz Bhatkal was the original mastermind behind Ahmedabad bombings. Despite that Basheer is still facing trial in Ahmedabad.
8. Rajasthan ATS arrested some Muslim youths for the 2007 Ajmer Dargah blast and alleged it to have been carried out by Harkatul Mujahideen (HuJi). The NIA investigation later unearthed involvement of right wing people in the bombing leading to the arrest of three right wing men with association with RSS.
These are just few of the instances that provide clear picture as to how innocents are trapped in the investigation of different agencies. Liaqat Shah’s case is the latest one that proves how Delhi police implicated a person who was seeking a better future in India under the government’s surrender policy.
In Shah’s case, the NIA has written to the Union Home Ministry about how Delhi Police Special Cell officials made up a fake case. Time is, indeed, ripe to set precedence by the Centre by allowing the NIA to charge the guilty officers in Shah’s case so that the other officers linked with various investigative agencies may get the right signal: be cautious in arresting and implicating innocents.
There have been huge cooperation gaps between the NIA and other investigation agencies due to various reasons. It is sometime also to cover up false investigation carried out by state police to save its skin. But such cooperation gap and implicit competition of cracking cases are causing innocents to lose their future.
Related: