New Delhi:
National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Friday claimed that 16 people from Tamil Nadu, of which 14 were deported from UAE, were associated with Al Qaeda, Islamic State and Students Islamic Movement of India and planning to carry out attacks across the country.
A special NIA Court in Chennai granted the agency eight days custody of all the 16 persons, suspected to be associated with different terrorist organisations. The NIA alleged that they had come together to form a terror gang called Ansarulla and collected funds and made preparations to carry out attacks in the country, according to ANI news agency.
“Accused persons have been actively recruiting individuals to strike terror in India and have also been routinely posting videos and other jihadi propaganda material exhorting their supporters to conduct terrorist attacks using various methods including the use of explosives, poison, knives and vehicles, as means of attack,” the Indian Express quoted the NIA.
The National Investigation Agency said that based on credible information, it has booked all the 16 accused in a case registered on July 9. The central probe agency said that they had made preparations to wage a war against the Government of India.
“….based on credible information received that the accused persons, owing allegiance to the proscribed terrorist organizations ISIS/ Daish, Al Qaida and SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), while being within and beyond India, had conspired and conducted preparations to wage war against the Government of India by forming a terrorist gang Ansarulla,” the NIA said.
The counsels for the accused strongly opposed the NIA plea and said all the respondents, except two — Hasan Ali Yunus Maraicar and Harish Mohamed, were working in a foreign country and were suddenly deported to India and arrested thereafter.
“There is no necessity for custodial interrogation of the respondents. If police custody is granted they will be physically and mentally tortured by the NIA and there is a possibility of creating false evidence against the respondents,” they contended.
(With inputs from the agency.)
