news details |
|
|
| Yet another Kashmiri inmate of Tihar moves court against Delhi Police | | |
Srinagar, July 22
With more and more inmates of Tihar Jails moving court seeking investigation into what they allege was 'framing in false terrorist cases' by the Special Cell of Delhi Police, the investigation is all set to open a can of worms for the Delhi Police, infamous for framing visiting Kashmiris in terrorist cases. Preliminary investigation into the cases have shown that many of these framed by the Delhi Police's Special cell were actually former informers of some security agencies in Kashmir and there is every possibility that implication came after they refused to work for the other agencies.
Encouraged by CBI enquiry about the arrest of two other Kashmiris for alleged terrorism showing that they were falsely implicated, yet another Kashmiri lodged in Tihar Jails has approached Delhi High Court seeking an enquiry in his case alleging that he was framed up as a terrorist in a fake encounter in June 2005.
The litigant, a small time political worker from Kashmir, Haji Ghulam Dar, claims to be instrumental in the surrender of more than 300 militants in the valley. As a proof he has also attached with his petition to the High Court a letter signed by the Additional Director General of Police of the state almost a year after he was arrested in Delhi. The letter confirms that he has been working with the police in the state in neutralizing the militants. Dar has identified sub-inspector Ravinder Kumar Tyagi of the Special Cell as the key conspirator in framing him in the false case of terrorism.
In case of Mohammad Marouf Qamar and Irshad Ali arrested as Al Badr terrorists, the High Court had earlier ordered further CBI inquiry following a stunning preliminary enquiry report by a CBI police superintendent that pointed out many holes holes in the Special Cell's claim of nabbing them with arms and ammunition. The investigation pointed out that both were "actually informers working for the police."
Though the CBI did not say how and why they fall out with police despite working for it, it quoted two officers of the same Special Cell, Lalit Mohan Negi and Hriday Bhushan, confirm to it that Qamar and Ali were actually the police informers and that they had been providing vital information to the Special Cell regarding the suspected movements of the terrorists. The two officers were not part of the team that arrested them.
The High Court had ordered the CBI inquiry into the allegation of Qamar and Ali that they were abducted by the special cell in December 2005 and illegally held until February 9, 2005 when they were shown to have been arrested in the false terrorism case. In its preliminary report, the CBI faulted the police investigation as not inspiring confidence, citing seven grounds.
While Delhi Police had claimed to have nabbed them as they were alighting from a J&K transport bus in the capital at Mubarba Chowk with arms and RDX, both driver and conductor of the bus knew nothing about it. There were no eyewitnesses to the arrest and seizures. The CBI also noted that the charge sheet does not disclose from where the two had received the arms and explosives and that there was no record to prove that the two were members of Al Badr.
The CBI also questioned the Special Cell for not carrying out any search at the residence and workplace of the accused nor carrying out any investigation in Jammu and Kashmir to ascertain their source of the explosives except for claiming that they got them from J&K from Sheikh Pervez Fayaz Ahmed Radar, residents of Batmaloo in Srinagar. The CBI report points out that no efforts were made to trace these two, except for sending a NBW (non-bailable warrant) to the Srinagar SSP for execution that was returned since the address was found out to be incorrect and non-existing.
With several other inmates claiming that they had been falsely implicated, how far shall the Delhi High Court go in asking the CBI to investigate them?, remains to be seen. For the movement, that revelation that informers fall out of favour as soon as they decline to work is all set to invite a lot of criticism. Also the fact that informers of one security agency are a target for the other if they refuse to work for the latter has brought to light the war for maximum credit between the agencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
