'Immediate action needed': Naqvi on UP cop's 'Go to Pak' comment

Kashmir, Mar 3: Four days after the National Investigation Agency made a major breakthrough in the Pulwama terror attack case over a year after the bombing, arresting one person who had sheltered the suicide bomber Adil Ahmad Dar, the NIA on Tuesday arrested two more people in the case - a father-daughter duo - who had also provided shelter to the bomber, officials said.

The NIA also claimed that the video of the suicide bomber was also recorded at their residence and released by the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) terror group from Pakistan after the attack. An NIA spokesperson in Delhi said: "Two more persons have been arrested by the agency in the Pulwama terror attack case and they have been identified as Insha Jan, 23, and her father Tariq Ahmed Shah, 50, who works as a tipper driver."

The official said that the father-daughter duo have been arrested from Hakripora area in Pulwama for their involvement in the attack. The two were arrested on early Tuesday morning after senior officials of the NIA raided their house on Monday night.

A senior NIA official related to the probe told IANS: "The video of Dar, who attacked the CRPF convoy, was recorded at the home of the duo. And the same video was released soon after the Pulwama terror attack by the JeM terrorists from a Pakistani IP address."

He said, "The video was shared by them to their handlers in Pakistan."

The spokesperson further claimed that during the probe Tariq Ahmed Shah disclosed that his house in Hakripora area was used by Dar, Mohammad Umar Farooq, a Pakistani terrorist and IED maker, Kamran - another Pakistani terrorist (both were later killed in encounters with security forces), Sameer Ahmed Dar, a Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorist from Pulwama and Mohammad Ismail aka Ibrahim, a Pakistani terrorist.

The spokesperson said that Shah facilitated all the terrorists at his house for sheltering and for planning of the heinous attack on the CRPF convoy. He said Jan, daughter of Shah, facilitated the terrorists at their home and provided food and other logistics during their stay on more than 15 occasions for two to four days each time, in their house during the year 2018-2019.

"Initial interrogation has revealed that Jan was in constant touch with Farooq and was in communication with him over telephone and other social media applications," the spokesperson said. The fresh arrests of the two accused brings the total number of arrests in the case to three.

The arrests were made on the revelations of Shakir Bashir Magrey, who was arrested by the anti-terror probe agency on February 28. According to senior NIA officials, more arrests will be made in the coming days. Magrey, a resident of Hajibal, Kakapora in Pulwama district of Jammu & Kashmir, is an overground worker (OGW) of the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM).

According to agency sources, Magrey allegedly provided shelter and other logistical assistance to the Pulwama suicide bomber. He was sent to 15 days' NIA custody by a special NIA court in Jammu & Kashmir on Friday. During interrogation, Magrey revealed that he had harboured Dar and Pakistan-based terrorist Mohammad Umar Farooq in his house from late 2018 till the attack in February 2019 and assisted them in the preparation of the Improvised Explosive Device (IED). His shop is located near Lethpora bridge, and as advised by Mohammad Umar, he started conducting reconnaissance of the movement of CRPF convoys on Jammu-Srinagar Highway in January 2019, and informed Mohammad Umar and Adil Ahmad Dar about it.

Magrey was also involved in modifying the Maruti Eeco car and fitting the IED into it in early February, 2019 and was introduced to Adil Ahmad Dar in mid-2018 by Mohammad Umar and he became a full-time OGW of JeM.

"During his initial interrogation, he disclosed that on several occasions, he collected and delivered arms, ammunition, cash and explosive material to JeM terrorists, including those involved in the Pulwama attack," the agency had said on February 28.

"During investigation, the make, model and number of the car used in the attack was quickly ascertained by NIA to be a Maruti Eeco through forensic examination of the tiny remnants of the car which were found at the spot during extended searches," the agency stated.

"This has been corroborated by accused Shakir Bashir Magrey. The explosives used in the attack were determined to be ammonium nitrate, nitro-glycerin and RDX, through forensic investigation," it said.

New Delhi, Jun 3: Seasoned diplomat and former spokesperson of the External Affairs Ministry Raveesh Kumar has been appointed as India's next Ambassador to Finland, the government announced on Wednesday.

Raveesh Kumar, a 1995-batch Indian Foreign Service officer, served as the spokesperson of the MEA from July 2017 to April 2020 during which he deftly articulated India's position on a number of sensitive issues including last year's Balakot strike, reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir and the controversy surrounding the National Register of Citizens.

"He is expected to take up the assignment shortly," the MEA said.

Before becoming the MEA spokesperson, Kumar was serving as Consul General of India in Frankfurt.

Kumar started his career at the Indian Mission in Jakarta and it was followed by his postings in Thimpu and London.

In his nearly 25-year career, Kumar also looked after the East Asia desk in the headquarters of the MEA in Delhi and served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Jakarta followed by his posting as Consul General in Frankfurt from August 2013 to July 2017.

In Finland, he succeeds Vani Rao.

Finland is an important country for India in Europe, and bilateral trade has been on an upswing in the last few years.

Around 35 Indian companies have invested in Finland in IT, healthcare, hospitality and automotive sectors while over 100 Finnish companies have operations in India in energy, textiles, power plants and electronics sectors.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.