Delhi court permits NIA to take custody of CRPF jawan on charges of espionage
The order followed the arrest of CRPF jawan by NIA on May 21 as part of the agency's nationwide crackdown following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 in which 26 civilians lost their lives. The case is being probed by NIA.
Special judge (NIA) Chanderjit Singh of Patiala House Courts said, 'The allegations affect the national security as well as lives of citizens visiting India and Indian citizens.'
The court granted NIA 15-day custody to gather further details with regard to the information passed on by the jawan and his links across the border.
While the hearing of the case was held in-camera, a copy of the order, seen by HT, indicated that the CRPF jawan had shared information about Indian security operations and installations to Pakistan's intelligence officers over the past few months.
In his six-page order, Special Judge Chanderjit Singh noted how senior CRPF officers questioned the jawan on May 17 based on 'information regarding an exchange of information between him and anti-state elements' and handed him over to NIA on May 21, when he was formally arrested.
Also Read: BSF jawan Purnam Kumar Shaw treated like a spy by Pakistan, was not allowed to brush: Report
The accused has been booked under sections 15 (pertaining to terror act), 16 (punishment for terror act) and 18 (punishment for conspiracy and related acts) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The judge said, 'Armed forces are the pillar on the basis of which strength and security of the nation is measured and is dependent upon. Any attempt to violate it in such manner which may lead to irreparable damage is an issue which requires investigation'.
Following the expiry of the custody period, the jawan will be produced before the court next on June 6.
Section 43-D of UAPA, which addresses the investigation period and bail conditions for the accused allows the NIA to obtain police custody of an accused for up to 30 days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
India is 'Maharaj' in tariffs: White House Trade Adviser Navarro
New Delhi, India is a "Maharaj" in tariffs and it is running a "profiteering scheme" by using discounted Russian crude oil, White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro has said, in yet another sharp criticism of New Delhi. India is 'Maharaj' in tariffs: White House Trade Adviser Navarro Navarro's comments came on a day External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar responded to criticism of India by American officials for its energy ties with Russia, and said the US itself had asked New Delhi to help stabilise global energy markets by buying Russian oil. The White House Trade Adviser also talked about how India is "cosying up to" Chinese President Xi Jinping. The relations between New Delhi and Washington are on a downturn after US President Donald Trump doubled tariffs on Indian goods to a whopping 50 per cent including a 25 per cent additional duties for India's purchase of Russian crude oil. "Prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, India virtually bought no Russian was like almost one per cent of their need. The percentage has now gone up to 35 per cent," Navarro told reporters in the US. Navarro's fresh attack on India came three days after he wrote a piece in the Financial Times slamming the country for its procurement of Russian crude oil. He said the argument that India needs Russian oil to meet its energy requirement does not make any sense. They get chip Russian oil and make refined products which they sell at premium prices in Europe, Africa and Asia, he said, adding "it is purely profiteering by the Indian refining industry." "What is the net impact on Americans because of our trade with India? They are Maharaj in tariff. higher non-tariff barriers, massive trade deficit etc and that hurts American workers and American business," he said. The money they get from us, they use it to buy Russian oil which then is processed by their refiners, he said. "The Russians use the money to build arms and kill Ukrainians and Americans tax-payers have to provide more aid and military hardware to Ukrainians. That's insane." "India does not want to recognise its role in the bloodshed," he said, adding India is running a "profiteering" scheme. Though the US imposed an additional 25 per cent tariff on India for its energy ties with Russia, it has not initiated similar actions against China, the largest buyer of Russian crude oil. Defending its purchase of Russian crude oil, India has been maintaining that its energy procurement is driven by national interest and market dynamics. India turned to purchasing Russian oil sold at a discount after Western countries imposed sanctions on Moscow and shunned its supplies over its invasion of Ukraine in February, 2022. Consequently, from a mere 1.7 per cent share in total oil imports in 2019-20, Russia's share increased to 35.1 per cent in 2024-25, and it is now the biggest oil supplier to India. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Justice is not about ‘teaching someone a lesson'
In a recent judgment on a custodial death case from Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh High Court made an observation that should unsettle anyone who believes in the rule of law. The High Court noted that the police officers involved in the death of a man in custody appeared to have intended 'to teach a lesson' to the victim for misbehaving in public. The facts of the case are as troubling as the language used. In this case, a Dalit man, arrested for alleged public misbehaviour, died in custody just hours after a medical check found no injuries. However, the postmortem revealed 26 wounds. Four police officers were convicted of murder by the trial court, but the High Court reduced it to culpable homicide, citing lack of intent but knowledge that the assault could cause death. Violence cannot be framed as deterrence The statement, quietly embedded in a detailed legal opinion, is not just an off-hand remark. It is the reflection of a deeply problematic institutional mindset, one that rationalises state violence not as a constitutional aberration but as a tolerable, even necessary, tool for discipline. The judiciary must resist the temptation to rationalise police brutality, especially under the moral guise of correction or deterrence. 'Teaching a lesson' is neither a principle found in the Constitution of India nor a recognised standard of justice. Rather, it is a phrase rooted in vigilante logic, a framework where violence is met with greater violence; where the law is enforced not through rights and procedures but through fear and punishment. The real concern lies not in the commutation of the sentence, but in the conceptual framing of what happened. By stating that the officers intended to 'teach a lesson', the High Court inadvertently reinforces the very logic that normalises custodial torture in India. It suggests that the High Court views the violence not as a product of systemic rot but as a misguided form of discipline, excessive, perhaps, but still anchored in purpose. This is not a matter of semantics. Language shapes legal reasoning, and legal reasoning shapes policy. When a constitutional court appears to accept teaching a lesson as a partial justification or explanation for custodial violence, it reinforces a culture where officers feel emboldened to act as both enforcer and judge. It invites future violators to believe their actions will be read not as unlawful, but as excessive zeal. Violence as a caste-coded enforcement What gets erased in this framework is the identity of the victim, in this case a member of a Scheduled Caste. The trial court acquitted the prime accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and the High Court did not interfere. By demanding specific proof that the violence was caste motivated, the High Court ignored the lived reality of caste power. A Dalit man beaten to death in police custody by upper caste officers in rural India is not an incidental tragedy. It reflects a broader pattern of caste-coded enforcement. India's jurisprudence around the SC/ST Act remains trapped in a narrow reading. Courts tend to interpret the law as requiring explicit evidence that the assault occurred because of caste, ignoring that structural power itself often motivates and enables the violence. As long as the legal system demands overt slurs or declared caste intent to invoke the Act, it will continue to deny justice in most of the very cases the law was designed to address. That India has a custodial violence problem is no longer in dispute. Multiple judgments by the Supreme Court of India, from Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs State of West Bengal, State of U.P. to Munshi Singh Gautam (D) and Ors. vs State of M.P., have emphasised the need for procedural safeguards, transparency in detention and strict limits on police force. Yet, deaths in custody continue at an alarming rate, disproportionately affecting Dalits, Adivasis and the poor. Despite clear judicial guidelines, compliance remains sporadic and enforcement weak. Investigations are often conducted by the very institutions implicated in the abuse. The path for judicial integrity This is why judicial language matters. Courts must not only hold individuals accountable but also interrogate the institutional norms that enable violence. Every time a court suggests that violence was used 'to teach a lesson', it sends a subtle but powerful message that state brutality is regrettable, but sometimes understandable. That some people, under some circumstances, may deserve it. This is a dangerous path. The police are not agents of correction through coercion, but constitutional functionaries bound by the law. Justifying custodial violence for a minor offence such as public nuisance blurs that line dangerously. 'Teaching a lesson' is not justice. It undermines a system built on proportionality, dignity and due process. Deterrence comes from legal punishment, not from state-sanctioned force. When courts validate such reasoning, they weaken the very constitutional order they are meant to uphold. What is needed is not symbolic outrage but structural change. Courts must reinforce that violence in custody is never disciplinary. It is, in fact, criminal. The SC/ST Act must be robustly applied in every case where social power is weaponised. Independent accountability mechanisms must be strengthened and procedural safeguards made enforceable. Most of all, the judiciary must not give moral shelter to extra-legal instincts. The idea that public misbehaviour deserves private punishment is not justice but authoritarianism in slow motion. A Constitution built on dignity, equality, and the rule of law cannot coexist with a justice system that tolerates 'lessons' written in bruises. Shivangi Singh is a lawyer based in Delhi. The views expressed are personal
India.com
2 minutes ago
- India.com
Chhattisgarh horror: Kanker man abducted, killed by Naxals for hoisting Indian flag on I-Day, ultras accused him of...
The victim, Manish Nureti, was among the locals seen hoisting the Indian flag on Independence Day. Naxal violence: In a horrifying incident of Naxalite violence in Chhattisgarh's Kanker district, a local man who was seen hoisting the Indian flag during Independence Day celebrations in a viral social media video, was reportedly abducted and later killed by the ultras, who accused him of being a police informer. According to the police, the victim, identified as Manish Nureti, along with two others, was taken by a group of armed Naxalites, when they stormed his native Binagunda village under Chhotebetiya police station limits on Monday. An official said the Naxals held a 'Jan Adalat', where Nureti was executed for being a police informer, while the two other villagers were released after a beating. The Maoist ultras put up a poster claiming Nureti was a police informer, which is untrue,' said Kanker SP IK Elesela, adding that the victim's body is yet to recovered, and his kin are being contacted. 'Naxalites frequently visit Binagunda village. In the last one-and-half years, Naxalites have killed four-five people after accusing them of being police informers. However, none of the deceased had any connection to police,' Elesela said, according to PTI. Add as a Preferred Source Meanwhile, Bastar Range Inspector General of Police (IG) Sundarraj P confirmed that Manish Nureti was seen in a viral video where he is participating in Independence Day celebrations and hoisting the tricolor on the occasion. 'A probe is underway in the killing and strict action will be taken against those involved,' the IG asserted. Earlier, a video went viral on social media platforms showing some villagers, including children, unfurling the Tricolour amid slogans of 'Vande Mataram' and 'Bharat Mata ki Jai'. Nureti was one of the villagers seen in the video, police said. As per police sources, the Naxalites were unhappy with Nureti and some others for hoisting the national flag in the village on August 15, PTI reported. (With PTI inputs)
