ISI wanted to mislead: Intel
Intelligence officials said there were two reasons for the ISI wanting the LeT to deliver the explosives to Babbar Khalsa International militants to carry out a bomb attack — first, the LeT’s strength is dwindling in the Valley and they cannot afford to lose more men; and second, the ISI wanted to put the investigating agencies on the wrong track as it would have been assumed that the explosions were the handiwork of Valley-based terror outfits.
According to intelligence sources, BKI cadres had also reconnoitred the Patiala House courts in New Delhi in August.
“The ISI is trying hard to bring synergy among various militant groups operating in and outside the Valley. Also, to avoid any traces back to Pakistan, the ISI is now relying more on its operatives in Nepal and Bangladesh for terror strikes in India,” an official said. Following the technical surveillance the IB roped in the Delhi police special cell to intercept the delivery vehicle and effect arrests. However, sources said the two LeT militants who drove the car to the rendezvous grew suspicious and abandoned the vehicle. Intelligence agencies are scrutinising footage from three CCTV cameras at the Lakhanpur and Shambhu toll barrier on the Jammu-Pathankot highway, which the car crossed on Wednesday.
Subsequent investigations revealed the car’s registration at a Kalka address in Himachal Pradesh was fake.
***
Khurshid: just spontaneous response
S.S. Negi
New Delhi, Oct. 13
Additional solicitor-general Haren Raval, appearing for the CBI, told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the entire “criminal” action (in the 2G scam) only started with the issuing of LIOs by Mr Raja on January 10, 2008, and that the CBI was examining the role of various persons involved in the decision-making. “The charges against these persons cannot be wished away,” Mr Raval said.
Law minister Salman Khurshid gave an explanation to the court through the ASG on his statement on the arrest of corporate honchos. “This was a spontaneous response, which became inevitable in response to a specific question... but it was not the stand of the government,” he said.
Mr Raval said whenever the government wanted to take a stand in court it was always either in the form of a submission made by the counsel or through an affidavit.
Post new comment