New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday rejected a plea by Tahawwur Rana, a key figure in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, seeking permission to communicate with his family via phone while in custody. The decision was made by Special NIA Judge Chander Jit Singh, who dismissed the petition after hearing arguments from both sides.
Rana’s legal counsel, Piyush Sachdeva, had argued that as a foreign national, Rana should be granted the fundamental right to speak with his family, particularly since they were concerned about his treatment while in custody. However, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the request, citing the ongoing investigation and concerns that Rana might disclose sensitive information related to the case.
Earlier this week, the court had issued a notice to the NIA, asking for their response to Rana’s application for telephonic communication with his family. Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian national and a former military doctor, is facing charges related to terrorism, conspiracy, and other serious offenses. He was extradited from the United States to India earlier this year and is currently in custody while the investigation into his role in terrorist activities continues.
Background on Rana’s Case
Rana is accused of playing a pivotal role in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, which resulted in the deaths of over 170 people. He is alleged to have helped plan the attack and provided logistical support to the terrorists. During a recent remand hearing, the court was informed of evidence linking Rana to a broader terrorism conspiracy that spans multiple cities and includes potential targets beyond India’s borders.
The court emphasized the gravity of the charges and noted the direct implications for national security. It also highlighted the need to confront Rana with witnesses, forensic evidence, and documents seized during the investigation, particularly those related to surveillance operations prior to the attack.
Custody and Health Concerns
Given the seriousness of the charges, the court authorized an 18-day police custody remand for Rana, with a focus on strict adherence to legal procedures, including medical evaluations every 48 hours. Rana, who has reported health issues, is entitled to medical care under the terms of the extradition agreement, with the court ordering that he receive appropriate treatment as required by established guidelines.
Rana faces multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including conspiracy, terrorism, forgery, and waging war against the state. The court also noted that under the extradition laws, Rana can only be prosecuted for offenses explicitly covered by the extradition agreement.
Conclusion
Rana’s case continues to unfold as the investigation into the 26/11 attacks intensifies. The court’s decision to deny his request for family contact underscores the sensitive nature of the ongoing probe, which aims to bring justice to the victims of one of the deadliest terror attacks in India’s history.
