TrendingVideosIndiaWorldSports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhPatialaBathindaAmritsarLudhianaJalandharDelhi
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentLifestyle
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
Advertisement

NIA to investigate international links

While seeking remand of two accused in the Sector 10 grenade attack case, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has told the NIA court that it needed to investigate international linkages to the case. The NIA has filed the reply before...
Advertisement

While seeking remand of two accused in the Sector 10 grenade attack case, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has told the NIA court that it needed to investigate international linkages to the case. The NIA has filed the reply before the court on the objections raised by the defence counsel, who opposed the remand.

The NIA submitted that investigation carried out by UT police had revealed that accused Akashdeep Singh and accused Amarjit Singh were in contact with foreign-based accused Harpreet Singh, alias Happy Pasian, and were involved in smuggling of firearms etc. Their role is suspected in supply of firearms and grenade to accused Rohan Masih and Vishal Masih, alias Shalu.

Advertisement

The NIA said the investigation was at an initial stage and had been taken over by it. International linkages to the case are being investigated thoroughly, said the agency.

A grenade was hurled in the lawn of a house in Sector 10, Chandigarh, on September 11.

The NIA claimed the accused were involved in larger criminal conspiracy and the grenade attack was carried out on the directions of Harwinder Singh Sandhu Rinda of Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), a terrorist organisation based in Pakistan, in collusion with Harpreet, a gangster-turned-terrorist, at present based in the US.

Advertisement

The court adjourned the hearing for November 29. However, the court dismissed the application of the defence counsel in which he claimed that the accused had not been supplied with “grounds of arrest” as contemplated a mandatory requirement of law under the UAPA Act.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement