Answers needed: Court order extending custody of foreign nationals in terror conspiracy case

On March 16, the court had allowed 11-day NIA custody of the accused -- US national Matthew Aaron Van Dyke and six Ukrainian nationals

New Delhi: A Delhi court that extended the NIA custody of seven foreign nationals in a terror conspiracy case last week underlined its sensitive nature and said that several questions needed to be answered to ascertain things like the motive of the accused behind coming to India.

In the order dated March 27, NIA Special Judge Prashant Sharma said, "Regarding non-recovery of incriminating material, facts of this case have to be appreciated in totality. Why did the accused persons come to India? Why did they travel to Myanmar? What was their objective in using drones? Did the accused persons use drones for imparting training to any person?" "Whether any Indian or any member of a rebel ethnic group in India is linked with the accused persons, directly or indirectly? What infrastructure was used by accused persons while visiting India and beyond?" the judge asked, underlining that "such questions and questions of like nature" needed investigation.

Allowing 10-day custodial interrogation of the accused, he said, "I am in agreement with the NIA, based on the contents of case diaries, that the facts of this case are sensitive in nature." The judge, who conducted the proceedings at the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) headquarters here, directed the production of the accused persons after the completion of their custodial interrogation on April 6.

Earlier, he had allowed the agency's plea seeking to hold the judicial proceedings at its headquarters against six Ukrainians and a US national, noting that the case pertained to breach of national security and the investigation is highly sensitive with global ramifications.

On March 16, the court had allowed 11-day NIA custody of the accused -- US national Matthew Aaron Van Dyke and Ukrainian nationals Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim and Kaminskyi Viktor.

Court sources said the accused on Friday also moved a plea seeking an independent translator for fair judicial proceedings.

In the remand application on March 16, the investigation officer, citing the FIR, said that some Ukrainians had entered India on tourist visas on separate dates and flew to Guwahati, from where they travelled to Mizoram without obtaining the requisite documents such as the Restricted Area Permit or Protected Area Permit.

Thereafter, these individuals illegally entered Myanmar to impart pre-scheduled training for Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAO) in that country, the officer had said.

In its order allowing the NIA custody of the accused, the court said the allegations made in the FIR should not be appreciated in a piecemeal manner.

"No doubt the FIR in question talks about the accused persons travelling to Mizoram, which is a prohibited area, without permission and thereafter crossing over to Myanmar illegally. But it also mentions that the accused persons, linked to Ethnic Armed Organisations (in Myanmar), are (also) supporting certain proscribed Indian insurgent groups by supplying weapons and terrorist hardware and imparting training to them," the order said.

It said these allegations definitely involved national security and the country's interests, and broadly attracted Section 18 (punishment for conspiracy) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).