[Reader-list] Loopholes in 7/11 blast chargesheet

[Javed]

A police chargesheet full of holes. Is the 7/11 blasts trial going off rails?

BY RAJESH AHUJA

THE PAPERS they carry are frayed at the edges. Some are stacked in
worn-out files, some in cloth bags and others preserved by family
members. Papers they claim can prove their innocence.

Thirteen of them stand accused of taking 187 lives, injuring 817
others and damaging railway property worth Rs. 85.61 lakh in Mumbai on
11 July 2006 by planting seven bombs in the city’s lifeline, the local
trains. Some are charged by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) with
planting bombs, a few stand accused of providing material support to
the conspirators and a few allegedly brought half-a-dozen Pakistanis
to India to carry out the attack.

The chargesheet in the case states most of them were members of the
banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). But the chargesheet
has lost one vote of confidence after another in the four years since
it was filed.

Most recently, the testimony of David Coleman Headley, an agent of
Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and ISI of Pakistan, raises doubts about the ATS
theory. Headley has told Indian interrogators that Pakistan Army Major
Abdul Rehman alias Pasha, who joined the LeT after leaving the force,
knew the boys who had carried out the 7/11 attack. Headley has said it
was Mujammil Bhat who headed the India set-up of the LeT and oversaw
preparations for the 26/11 attacks.

But the chargesheet says the execution of the conspiracy to bomb
Mumbai’s local trains was supervised by Azam Cheema, the LeT commander
who was replaced by Bhat in 2005.

Documents available with TEHELKA also show that when the ISI was
looking for a recruit to attack the Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bengaluru, it was Bhat who ‘loaned’ Abu Hamza to the ISI for
the operation that was carried out in December 2005. This too points
to Bhat being LeT commander for the rest of India.

APART FROM this, the chargesheet has received another jolt from a
police witness in the case. On 21 October, the female witness (name
withheld) turned hostile during the trial, telling the court that Dr
Tanveer Ahmed Ansari (accused No. 2) who worked in a hospital,
regularly reported for work in the morning and stayed till late in the
period between 8 and 10 July. The police had claimed in its
chargesheet that Dr Ansari was present when the bombs were being
prepared on 8-10 July in the house of another accused Shaikh Mohammad
Ali. The deposition of the woman raises doubts on the police
chargesheet.

The same witness has also now raised doubts on the seizure memo
prepared by the police, which bears her signature. It records recovery
of bottles of acetone and hydrogen peroxide from Dr Ansari’s locker in
the hospital. The chargesheet alleged that Dr Ansari procured these
chemicals for preparing seven bombs that ripped apart train
compartments.

The bottles containing the material were supposedly kept in the locker
room by Dr Ansari. But the witness told the court that the seizure
memo was brought to her a few days after their supposed recovery, and
the police asked her to backdate it. She also told the court that
hydrogen peroxide is routinely used for cleaning wounds and acetone
for removing acne.

Mohammad Ali, a supplier of Unani medicines, has been accused of
getting the bombs assembled at his house. The police say that RDX
traces were found there. His lawyer Avinash Rasal says he has
arguments to counter the charge but will open his cards at an
appropriate time.

Mohammad Ali is anguished. “Please go and have a look at my house. It
is a two-storey, 10x10 accommodation that I share with my two brothers
along with their wives and children,” he says. “It is simply
impossible to hide so many bombmakers in the house without arousing
the neighbours’ suspicion.”

Interestingly, the 41-year-old accepts he was active in SIMI and used
to campaign against video parlours in his locality. He also claimed he
was picked up for interrogation by the police in connection with the
Ghatkopar blast (2003) and Gateway of India blasts (2004), but was
released when the police did not find evidence against him.

“Truth will prevail. Just see the statement given by the female
witness,” says Ata-ur-Rehman Shaikh, father of Faisal, 36, and
Mujammil, 26, two others accused in the 7/11 case. “My sons were
tortured to give confessions,” alleges their father. His third son
Rahil is also an accused in the case — police say he is now somewhere
in Britain. Rahil had sent money to finance the operation, according
to KP Raghuvanshi, who led the investigation in the 7/11 case as joint
commissioner, Mumbai ATS.

But Ata-ur-Rehman has a different story to tell. He alleges that the
police were looking for one Rahil Abdul Rehman Shaikh, who used to
live in Grant Road of the city. His son’s name is Rahil Ata-ur-Rehman
Shaikh. This similarity of names, says Ataur- Rehman, made his son a
convenient target for the police.

According to documents available with TEHELKA, there is indeed a Rahil
Shaikh of Grant Road, who managed to give the slip to Delhi Police
when the latter were about to arrest him. According to sources, Rahil
Shaikh is an LeT member. He was also a prime suspect in the 7/11 case
in the initial stages of the probe.

A witness now says the police asked her to backdate the seizure memo a
few days after the supposed recovery

There are many more twists in the chargesheet, which may need a lot of
explaining. It claims that Kamal Ansari, 37, a resident of Basupatti
in Bihar, planted the bomb at Matunga railway station. Three Pakistani
nationals — Salim, Hafijullah and Aslam — were with him when Kamal
left the bomb to explode in the local train (645 Down Virar Fast),
which claimed 28 lives. But Kamal told TEHELKA he was not even in
Mumbai on 11 July 2006. Kamal claims on that day he rode his bike from
Basupatti to Janakpur in Nepal, a distance of 13 km. The Nepal border
authorities recorded his crossing in what is commonly known as a
‘bhansar register’. Kamal has photographs of his bike and the register
where his name is clearly mentioned. But he doesn’t have the resources
to get the original documents to prove his innocence.

The ATS will need to overcome all these hurdles to prove its case in
the court. More than four years after the incident, less than 60 out
of the 2,000 witnesses have deposed so far. It could be a long wait
for justice for those who say they have been falsely implicated.

rajesh.ahuja at tehelka.com
>From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 44, Dated November 06, 2010