New Delhi, March 30 A Delhi court that extended the NIA custody of seven foreign nationals in a terror conspiracy case last week emphasized the sensitive nature of the case 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 the non-recovery of incriminating material, the facts of this case must be considered in their entirety. 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 to train anyone?"
"Is anyone in India, or any member of a rebel ethnic group in India, connected to the accused, directly or indirectly? What infrastructure did the accused persons use while visiting India and beyond?" the judge asked, emphasizing that "such questions and questions of a similar nature" needed to be investigated.
Allowing a 10-day custodial interrogation of the accused, he said, "I agree with the NIA, based on the contents of the 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 after the completion of their custodial interrogation on April 6.
Earlier, he had allowed the agency's plea seeking to hold judicial proceedings at its headquarters against six Ukrainians and a US national, noting that the case pertained to a breach of national security and the investigation was highly sensitive with global ramifications.
On March 16, the court had allowed a 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 also moved a plea on Friday seeking an independent translator for fair judicial proceedings.
In the remand application on March 16, the investigating 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 necessary documents such as the Restricted Area Permit or Protected Area Permit.
Thereafter, these individuals illegally entered Myanmar to provide pre-scheduled training to Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) in that country, the officer had said.
In its order allowing the NIA custody of the accused, the court said that the allegations made in the FIR should not be considered in isolation.
"No doubt the FIR refers to the accused persons travelling to Mizoram, which is a prohibited area, without permission and subsequently crossing into Myanmar illegally. However, it also mentions that the accused, linked to Ethnic Armed Organisations (in Myanmar), are also supporting certain proscribed Indian insurgent groups by supplying them with weapons and terrorist hardware and training them," the order said.
It said that 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).