Intel busts cadres of new terror unit
The Central intelligence agencies have cracked the cadres who are handling the operations of Bullet 313, a new terror outfit allegedly set up by the Laskhar-e-Tayyaba after the ban on the Indian Mujahideen.
This newspaper had on April 16 published an article based on intelligence reports that Bullet 313 was formed to replace IM. According to the latest intelligence report, the agency has identified three persons currently handling the reins of Bullet 313.
According to the report the three youths are Sameer, Shakeel and Hakim Nizamuddin, one from Delhi and two from Mumbai. The report gives details of all three cadres and also mentions their modus operandi. Sameer who is believed to be around 28 to 30 years old is a resident of Andheri near Gyan Kendra. “He generally avoids going to mosques to offer prayers and is a well-educated person with a knowledge of science and English,” states the report.
The report mentions that Shakeel is around 35 to 40 years old and was a pilot. Shakeel got religious training in a madrasa in Delhi and Indonesia. He is presently based in Delhi and apparently handles circulation and printing of religious books. Whereas Nizamuddin is a hakim (a doctor) by profession and was earlier living at Santa Cruz but has now shifted to Bhiwandi or Mumbra. “At this stage, the leaders of the Bullet 313 are recruiting Muslim youth, who will be trained to carry out terror attacks,” said an intelligence officer.
***
Court denies narco test on Ajmer blast accused
AGE CORRESPONDENT
Jaipur
May 13: The ATS has received a jolt in the Ajmer blast case investigation when a local court ruled that no narco or brain-mapping test could be conducted on blast suspect Devendra Gupta without his consent. The blast suspect had opposed narco test on him and filed a revision petition before the district and sessions court in Ajmer.
The ATS had got permission from the court of chief judicial magistrate in Ajmer on May 3 to conduct a narco-analysis on Mr Gupta.
But his lawyers challenged the order and cited that it was against a person’s freedom.
Post new comment