NIA takes custody of top ULFA(I) leader Rupam Asom, reopens long-dormant insurgency cases
Guwahati, June 24 (UNI) The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has formally taken custody of United Liberation Front of Asom (Independent) brigadier Rupam Asom, also known by his real name Kant Borah, intensifying its probe.
The senior ULFA(I) commander, apprehended by Tinsukia police earlier this week, was handed over to the NIA after preliminary questioning.
He is currently being interrogated at the agency's Sonapur office near Guwahati.
Officials confirmed that he has been undergoing sustained questioning over the past three days.
Rupam Asom is believed to have played a key role in multiple incidents of armed violence, including murder, abduction, and attacks on security forces, particularly in Upper Assam.
His name figures prominently in several NIA case files, many of which had gone cold due to his prolonged period of hiding in camps across the Indo-Myanmar border.
Sources within the security establishment suggest that his capture marks a critical breakthrough in the agency's multi-pronged crackdown on insurgent groups operating in the Northeast.
With his formal custody now secured, the NIA has reopened several stalled investigations related to the outfit's violent activities over the past decade.
The agency is especially interested in uncovering details about ULFA(I)'s transborder linkages, especially with other Northeast-based insurgent groups and networks in Myanmar and China.
His interrogation, officials believe, could shed light on arms procurement routes, financial channels, and the group's recent recruitment drives targeting vulnerable youth in Assam's rural districts.
Though the NIA has yet to formally announce the specific charges under which Rupam Asom will be produced in court, officials said new developments are expected soon.
ULFA(I), led by Paresh Baruah, has continued to reject peace talks with the government, unlike the pro-talks faction that laid down arms in 2011.
The group remains active in select districts and continues to maintain a presence across the porous Indo-Myanmar border.
UNI XC GNK
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump administration accuses judge of defying Supreme Court in deportation fight
* Trump administration accuses judge of defying Supreme Court in deportation fight US has sought to deport migrants to unstable South Sudan * Judge says deportation attempt violated his injunction By Andrew Chung June 24 - President Donald Trump's administration accused a federal judge on Tuesday of defying the U.S. Supreme Court's authority, escalating a fight over a group of eight migrants who it had sought to rapidly deport to politically unstable South Sudan. In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy showed "unprecedented defiance" by ignoring Monday's decision by the justices that let the administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. Monday's decision lifted the Boston-based judge's April 18 injunction requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination. It was the latest legal victory for Trump at the Supreme Court in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. After the Supreme Court's decision, Murphy issued an order clarifying that its action did not apply to the judge's separate May 21 decision that the administration violated his injunction in attempting to send the migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." Murphy's May 21 order prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to clarify that its order lifting Murphy's injunction also applies to the May 21 decision concerning South Sudan. "The district court's ruling of night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive's lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals," the Justice Department wrote in its filing. The Justice Department said its agents are being "forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict." The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The escalating dispute comes as the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders, including in the third-country deportation litigation. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent on Monday that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on to El Salvador, the administration "openly flouted two court orders" issued by Murphy. Sotomayor also pointed to separate litigation over Trump's invocation of an 18th century law historically used only in wartime to justify deportations - a legal dispute in which questions have been raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that case. "This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law." Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates the U.S. Constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. Lawyers representing the migrants in a class action lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to reject the administration's latest request. The administration wants to "deport these men to South Sudan with no process at all," the lawyers said. "The lives and safety of eight members of the nationally certified class in this case are at imminent risk," they added. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
NHRC takes cognisance of Etawah tonsuring incident, Akhilesh calls it ‘attack on PDA'
Taking cognisance of an incident involving some 'upper caste' men assaulting a kathavachak (religious speaker) and his associate from the Yadav community and tonsuring their heads, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Tuesday issued a notice to the Etawah district police and directed to submit an action taken report. The development came a day after a video of the incident went viral. Four accused have been arrested and sent to jail after an FIR was registered in the matter, police said. Also, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav termed the incident as an attack on PDA (Pichhde, Dalit and Alpsankhyak) and felicitated the two men at the party office in Lucknow. The accused were identified as Nikki Awasthi, 30, Pratham Dubey, 24, Ashish Tiwari, 21 and Uttam Awasthi, 19. The alleged incident took place at Dadarpur village on Saturday (June 21) after the villagers objected to the kathavachak, Mukut Munni, identifying himself as a Brahmin. The NHRC sought the action taken report from the Etawah Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) on the basis of a complaint filed by Bhopal-based Dr Ambedkar Jankalyan Samiti, which alleged the religious speaker and his associate from backward class were assaulted, their heads tonsured and human urine was thrown at them. Also, they were forced to rub their nose at the feet of a woman and their instruments were damaged, it was alleged. 'The allegations made in the complaint prima facie seem to be a serious violation of human rights of the victims,' the commission observed in its notice. Mukut Munni said the incident took place after he informed the villagers about his caste. In a press statement, the police said the social media team at the police headquarters on Monday evening received a tweet through X, in which a video of tonsuring of a kathavachak was attached. Taking cognizance of the tweet, it was forwarded to Etawah district for necessary action, they said. SSP Brijesh Kumar Srivastava said, 'A video of villagers misbehaving with two individuals and cutting their hair against their will surfaced. The accused were identified with the help of the video.' Claiming it was an attack on PDA, Akhilesh Yadav said, 'Members of the PDA family are being intimidated. If Bhagwat Katha is for everyone to listen to then everyone can recite it as well. Bhagwat Katha is related to Lord Krishna and if his true followers would be stopped from reciting it then we will not tolerate this disrespect.' The SP chief alleged that some people want to have a monopoly on the recitation of kathas, saying, 'If such people have hostility towards PDA then they should stop taking donations from the community.' Earlier in the day, Uttar Pradesh Tourism Minister Jaiveer Singh said unnecessary hype should not be given to the incident as the accused have been arrested. 'I believe that caste has no privilege over merit and efficiency. One can do anything based on their ability. The incident is unfortunate. An FIR has been registered against the accused. There is no need to give this incident a political turn as no injustice towards anyone would be done under this government,' the minister said, claiming that Akhilesh 'sees PDA in everything'.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court refuses to order de-freezing of bank account held by cryptocurrency trader
The Madras High Court has refused to order defreezing of a Chennai-based bank account of an online trader of crypto currency who ended up getting mired in multiple cyber crime complaints lodged with the police in Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala, Gujarat and New Delhi. Justice P. Velmurugan dismissed the petition filed by B. Kalyan, a software engineer now working in Bengaluru, after advocate Chevanan Mohan, representing HDFC Bank, told the court that the account was frozen following requests received from five different States. Observing that he was not inclined to issue any direction in a case involving the police departments outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, the judge said, the petitioner would, however, be at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that he had obtained a personal loan for ₹35 lakh from HDFC Bank and another ₹24.91 lakh from Axis Bank and purchased 67,873 crypto coins on payment of ₹60 lakh from a leading digital assets company in 2023 and sold them through an online platform. However, suddenly, he was shocked to find his salary account having been frozen by HDFC bank on the request of the police departments from various States. Hence, he had rushed to the court stating that he was not involved in any wrongdoing and hence freezing of his account was unjustifiable. On his part, Central Government Standing Counsel L.J. Vengatesh told the court that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had established Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) to provide a framework and eco system for the law enforcement agencies to deal with cybercrime in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. I4C had, in turn, created a centralised online platform named National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) for lodging financial fraud complaints and had also introduced a national toll free helpline number 1930 through which cybercrime complaints could be reported without the need to go to a police station. Stating that the involvement of I4C ends with coordination, the counsel said, that since 'police' was a State subject, it was the law enforcement agencies in the respective States which conduct preliminary inquiry into the complaints and issue notices to the banks for marking a lien over the assets, if necessary. 'Neither the MHA nor I4C has any intervention or administrative control over the marking of lien or freezing of bank accounts. The police officers exercise such powers available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and they have been advised to exercise the power with due care and caution,' he said.
