Terror track: NIA’s alt+ctrl+shift

Mukesh Ranjan in new delhi

INVESTIGATORS are generally used to denying things too apparent, something even in their plain sight, until there’s “undeniable evidence.” A conviction brought out by a court of law is the most savoury moment for an investigator/prosecutor. Remember the streaks of success on the face of Ujjwal Nikam, the famed prosecutor in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case, when Ajmal Kasab was convicted and subsequently hanged? A series of terror cases are, however,  thought to have been “solved” by our intelligence services, the newest being the National Investigation Agency (NIA), but in some crucial cases, the conviction has remained elusive. It’s time for one hard look at how things have fallen through the cracks in the face of evidentiary indispensability. 

Sample this: the NIA’s stand is leading to the weakening of prosecution in “saffron” terror cases. For example 17 of 299 witnesses in the 2007 Samjhauta Express case and 19 of 180 witnesses in the Ajmer Dargah case (2007) have turned hostile; the 2008 Modasa (Gujarat) blast case has been closed by the NIA, citing lack of evidence; and three key conspirators — Ramchandra Kalsangra alias Ramji, Sandeep Dange alias Parmanand and Ashwini Chouhan alias Amit — are at large.

In Samjhauta blast case, NIA investigators deny that they are either giving clean chit to anybody or shifting the charge to Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) as reported in a section of the media. They say they are giving a fresh look at a few “new leads.” These include involvement of LeT financier Arif Qasmani. “Our effort is to rule out involvement of any other outfit in the case, as the US authorities have documented the alleged role of Qasmani in the case,” said an IG rank officer in the NIA. 

Last year, the Union home ministry declined permission to challenge the bail granted to two of the accused in the Ajmer Dargah case, Devender Gupta and Lokesh Sharma. The ministry said the decision was taken on “grounds of parity” — bail was granted to two other accused in the same case in 2013, and their bail plea was not challenged by the prosecution. The NIA chose not to oppose the bail granted to Swami Aseemanand in the Samjhauta Express blast case.

Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Srikant Purohit, the alleged main conspirator of the 2008 Malegaon blasts, recently wrote to National Security Adviser Ajit Doval that he was falsely implicated. He has asked Doval to intervene on his behalf “immediately”, as the NIA was preparing to file its charge-sheet soon. Home Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi has sought the NIA response in the matter, as Doval redirected the letter to the Home Ministry.

Meanwhile, investigators and prosecutors seem to have locked horns following former special public prosecutor Rohini Salian’s charge that Suhas Warke, a superintendent of police in the NIA, had asked her to “go soft” on the accused in the Malegaon blasts case after the BJP came to power in 2014. Former senior police officers see danger in the frequent change of stance by NIA as it “weakens India’s criminal justice system.” “It is sad to see the same investigation agency taking contradictory positions. These days the stick-and-carrot policy of political masters is so real that officers succumb to it,” said former Delhi Police Commissioner Ved Marwah.

NR Vasan, the former NIA DG, has reportedly rued the fact that the investigation agency is toeing the CBI lines. Like CBI, the NIA is being filled with officers on deputation from paramilitary forces such as the Border Security Force (BSF). Thus, investigation into “critical terror case” takes a beating, he said. 

Security experts have observed that in recent times much is being said about witnesses turning hostile. In many such cases, most witnesses are friends or family members of the accused. “In such situations, it is natural for them to turn hostile,” says an observer, adding it was where the experience of the agency sleuths matters. “They can gather enough evidence that can stand the test of law.”

The idea of “Hindu radicals” first came up in 2011 at the annual All-India Director General of Police (DGP) Conference in Delhi held behind closed doors. Intelligence officers raised alarm over rightwing Hindu organisations. “Such outfits have been espousing emotive issues, leading to radicalisation and the phenomenon of saffron terrorism,” a special director of the IB had noted. He said Hindu activists were “either under suspicion or under investigation in 16 incidents of blasts.”