Author: Ashish Khetan & Abhijit Sathe
Publication: Mumbai Mirror
Date: October 8, 2006
Introduction: ATS chief K P Raghuvanshi tells
Mumbai Mirror in an exclusive interview that 7/11's prime accused Faisal Shaikh
had taken Rs 65 lakh from LeT but hadn't done his 'work' for long. That's
why men from Pakistan were sent to get the job done
For the first time since the July 11 train
blasts, Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Krish pal Raghuvanshi speaks at length
about the investigations.
In the hour-long interview, the joint commissioner
avoided describing the nature of the evidence accumulated against the accused
and emphasised that the focus of the probe was not on Pakistan's Inter-Services
intelligence (ISI).
Raghuvanshi also refused to tell whether the accused had given full confessions,
or if the result of the narco - analysis tests were conclusive.
While displaying mixed emotion of discomfiture
and bravado, he says he is confident of clearing the ultimate litmus test
when the police case is put to judicial scrutiny.
Q.: There are a few jokes going around about
7/11 investigation: Such as the ATS founded out about Pakistan's involvement
from the ISI mark on the pressure cooker recovered from an accused's house.
A.: We never claimed to have recorded evidence against ISI. What we said is
that in this case, we are collecting evidence against criminal and during
the course of investigation, we have come to know the link between then and
ISI. Our focus is not investigate ISI; our focus is on the terrorist.
Q.: Report say that none of the accused admitted
their crime during the narco-analysis tests. Were the questions asked to them
indirect?
A.: Narco-analysis is just a scientific aid to investigation.
Q.: But there are no confessional statements
of any of the accused!
A.: How can you say that?
Q.: The police suspected the accused even
before the blasts occurred. The ATS and Delhi police raided the house of one
Rahil Sheikh on Grant Road in may, but sheikh escaped. Why was his family
investigated? Why were no efforts made to investigate his associates and activities?
A.: The Delhi police had arrested two people who revealed that they were sent
to Pakistan by Rahil Sheikh. But
Rahil is no way involved with the 7/11 conspiracy or with the Aurangabad-malegaon
RDX haul. He is wanted by Delhi police.
Q.: But after 7/11, Crime Branch Unit II followed
the same trail of evidence and detained Rahil's brother, who revealed and
name of Islamic research Foundation member Firoz Deshmukh. Deshmukh spilled
the beans on Faisal Sheikh, who you now allege is the brain behind 7/11. They
say he handlied logistics and finance for Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) operations
in Western India for the past three years. Is this true?
A.: May be.
Q.: Could Rahil's arrest have averted 7/11?
Was Rahil involved in the blasts?
A.: Rahil was not involved in 7/11 - neither at the planning stage, nor in
execution. He sent people to Pakistan's terrorist training camps.
Q.: You say the bombs were assembled in a
chawl in Govandi, and then transported to Bandra, and from there to Churchgate
station. Why would the terrorists expose themselves to so much traveling and
co-ordination?
A.: Bombs were assembled and stored at Govandi and Bandra. The bomb-making
expert was from Pakistan, and he was helped by local accomplices. You have
to remember one thing: People who were controlling the operation were from
Pakistan. They did not want the bombs to be at one place for a long time.
A few more arrests are to be made. Bombs may have been stored at other places
too.
Q.: We have seen Mohammed Ali Sheikh's house
in Govandi. How can 20 people live and make bombs in a 10x 12ft chawl room,
where even your snores can be heard by neighbours?
A.: One, there were not 20 people. Ali lived with his wife and two children
on the ground floor, and his two brothers lived on the first floor. Terrorists
prefer an inconspicuous place. Once the bomb making material has been transported
to the place, how will the neighbours find out?
Q.: Is it true Mohammed Ali Sheikh was picked up by the police after the Mulund
blasts and Gateway of India blasts, and subsequently released?
A.: I cannot comment on this. I know for sure that the ATS has never detained
him.
Q.: You said at the press conference that
terrorists bought eight pressure cookers from a shop and removed the wrappers
in the shop itself. Wouldn't that arouse suspicion?
A.: Everyone makes mistakes. Isn't it unusual that the person who buys a pressure
cooker wants only the cookers, and not the cover? Also such items are usually
bought by woman or a couple. The fact that men made the purchase itself arouses
suspicion.
Q.: Mohammed Ali Sheikh's family claims that
after 7/11 he was detained by ATS for almost two months, and then released.
He was arrested again last week, and shown as an accused. It looks like he
was arrested as an afterthought, and his role in the blasts was scripted.
A.: He was never detained for two months. He was called intermittently for
questioning. We were verifying facts. Only after his name was confirmed by
other accused did we arrest him.
Q.: You said that there are almost 200 Pak-trained
terrorists in the city. Why would ISI or LeT send 12 Pakistanis to carry out
blasts?
A.: I never put a figure to it. Not 200. Not one.
Q.: But you have acknowledged that there are
a number of LeT operatives in the city. Also, in the either blasts (such as
in Mulund and in 1993) the foot-soldiers were locals. Why would LeT or ISI
send Pakistanis especially for this job?
A.: Faisal Sheikh had been taking money from the LeT for the past four years
- almost Rs 60 to 65 lakh but had done no concrete work in return. That's
why LeT sent their own men to supervise and execute the operation.
Q.: after the blasts, you killed a 'Pakistan'
in an abandoned building at Antop Hill. Why would a Pakistani agent live in
a desolate place where he could be spotted easily?
A.: Since his Indian counterparts had already been arrested, he left the place
he was originally staying at and look refuge at Antop Hill.
Q.: Isn't it strange that while other Pakistani
operatives left the country after the blasts, one of then decided to stay
back?
A.: He was waiting for further instructions, and we have intelligence inputs
that he was to carry out more attacks in the first week of August.
Q.: Why did you declare that Naveed Hussain
was an accused, even before he was questioned?
A.: his name was confirmed by an accused in our custody.
