'You Thought It Was A Hoax': Chennai Woman Behind Bomb Scare Emails Took Ahmedabad Crash Credit
Last Updated:
Chennai tech consultant Rene Joshilda sent hoax bomb threats to multiple cities, claiming she orchestrated the Air India crash in Ahmedabad.
A Chennai-based woman accused of sending dozens of bomb threats across Gujarat and other Indian states also claimed responsibility for the Air India crash in Ahmedabad earlier this month, investigators speaking to the Times of India said.
The woman, Rene Joshilda, a senior consultant at a multinational tech firm, allegedly ran a coordinated hoax campaign using spoofed emails, VPNs and the dark web to target schools, hospitals and high-security zones. The police said that her motive was to frame a man she wanted to marry.
In an email sent to Ahmedabad's BJ Medical College on June 13, she referenced the Air India disaster and wrote: 'We crashed the Air India plane yesterday. You thought it was a hoax. Now you know we're serious."
She warned that more attacks would follow.
Police later confirmed that this mail too came from Joshilda, sent as part of her attempt to escalate public fear and implicate her former partner, Divij Prabhakar, who married someone else earlier this year.
The crash she referred to, involving Air India flight AI-171, had already sparked widespread speculation and was now being used by Joshilda as a scare tactic, investigators said.
The case began with a bomb threat received by an Ahmedabad school on June 3, triggering a nationwide investigation. Over the next several days, more emails surfaced targeting public institutions including the Narendra Modi Stadium and BJ Medical College.
Investigators said she used a mix of fake email IDs, anonymized virtual phone numbers, and secure browsers to mask her tracks, launching threats timed with religious festivals, school schedules, and VIP movements in at least 12 states including Maharashtra, Delhi, Rajasthan and Kerala.
Despite these precautions, a small technical error reportedly led officers to her residence in Chennai, where she was arrested.
'We were tracking her for a long time," a senior police officer said. 'She was very smart and didn't reveal her virtual trail, but due to a small mistake of hers, we tracked her and caught her from her house in Chennai."
Police also recovered digital devices and documents linking her to the threats. Officials said that the email trails, technical footprints and her motive was built around the rejection she faced.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Letting cops summon lawyers for advising clients can have chilling effect: SC
NEW DELHI: Allowing the police to summon lawyers for advising their clients can 'shatter the core of legal independence' and constitute a 'serious interference with the administration of justice', the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, as it initiated suo motu proceedings to address the issue and formulate safeguards to protect the legal profession. The Supreme Court observed that summoning lawyers for advising clients can shatter the core of legal independence (PTI) 'The legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Counsels who are engaged in their legal practice have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions. Permitting investigating agencies or police to directly summon defence counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice,' said a bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh. The court made the observations during a hearing involving a Gujarat-based lawyer who was summoned by the police for securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case. The police summons, issued under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the SC/ST Cell in Ahmedabad, was upheld by the Gujarat high court. The top court stayed the order and protected the lawyer from further coercive action. The development comes just days after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued, and subsequently withdrew, summons to two senior Supreme Court advocates, triggering widespread outrage over the perceived breach of lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. 'Summoning lawyers for advising clients can shatter the core of legal independence,' the bench said, adding that such practices, if allowed to persist, would have a chilling effect on legal professionals and impair the justice delivery system. 'This is not just about one lawyer. It is about protecting the spine of the legal system,' it emphasised. Justice Viswanathan remarked that it was essential to address this issue comprehensively, not just as a one-off incident, but to safeguard the legal profession and preserve the integrity of the justice system. 'Lawyers must be able to advise and represent clients without fear of being summoned or harassed. We are dealing with the very heart of judicial independence and the administration of justice,' the court said. It went on to frame two critical questions. First, can the police summon a lawyer who has only advised a party in a case; and if there is more than advisory involvement, should judicial oversight be a precondition? To ensure a comprehensive and principled resolution, the court sought assistance from the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman, and presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). The matter has also been referred to Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai for appropriate orders on further listing. 'It is a matter which directly impinges the administration of justice,' the court noted. The top court's intervention comes just days after SCAORA on June 20 flagged the ED summons to the CJI as a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. Senior lawyer Pratap Venugopal, who was summoned to appear before ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, was told that the summons had been withdrawn within hours of SCAORA raising the issue in the top court. The summons pertained to ED's probe into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. Venugopal, in this instance, was the Advocate-on-Record for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar. ED had also summoned Datar earlier, but withdrew that notice too amid widespread criticism from the legal fraternity. In his June 20 letter to the CJI, SCAORA president Vipin Nair described the summons as 'a deeply disquieting development' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the core of the rule of law and the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity -- strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter said, urging the CJI to frame clear guidelines. The concern was echoed across the legal community. The Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution on June 17 condemning the ED summons to Datar as a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also held an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent amendments to the Indian Evidence Act and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to safeguard lawyer-client privilege. In a statement on June 20 evening, ED said the summons to Venugopal was issued in his capacity as Independent Director of Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL), not as a legal counsel, and said any further information would be sought through email. ED also issued a circular directing all field offices not to issue summons to advocates in violation of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It mandated that in exceptional cases where the proviso to Section 132 may apply, prior approval from the ED director would be necessary.
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Moiz Abbas Shah, Pak officer linked to 2019 Abhinandan Varthaman capture, killed in Taliban clash: Report
Pakistani Army officer Moiz Abbas Shah, who played a role in the 2019 capture of Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman, was among two personnel killed during a clash with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region. In the photo: Pakistani Army officer Moiz Abbas Shah (left). Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman, who was part of the Combat Air Patrol responding to the intrusion, was captured after his jet was shot down over Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in 2019. According to an India Today report, Pakistan's military confirmed that 11 terrorists were eliminated during an intelligence-based operation (IBO) in South Waziristan district. However, two security personnel, including Major Shah, also lost their lives in the encounter. The 2019 India-Pakistan aerial confrontation was triggered by India's airstrike on a terrorist training camp in Balakot, located in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, on February 26—twelve days after the Pulwama attack. In response, Pakistan deployed around 24 fighter jets to target Indian military installations. This action led to a brief but intense aerial engagement between the two air forces. The dogfight began around 10 am on February 27 and lasted approximately ten minutes, taking place in the skies over Nowshera in Jammu's Rajouri district. It marked the first direct aerial combat between India and Pakistan since the 1971 war. During the encounter, India shot down a US-made F-16 belonging to the Pakistan Air Force, according to a report by Hindustan Times. An Indian Air Force pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman, part of the Combat Air Patrol tasked with intercepting the incoming aircraft, was captured after his jet was shot down in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan's strike group, which included 12 jets – among them four F-16s and four Mirage aircraft – entered Indian airspace through the Kalal area of the Nowshera sector. These jets had taken off from Nur Khan and Sargodha air bases. Abhinandan was held captive for about '60 hours' Abhinandan Varthaman, then 35, made military aviation history during the February 27, 2019 aerial dogfight by shooting down a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet just moments before his own MiG-21 Bison was hit by a missile, forcing him to eject. It was widely regarded as the first recorded instance of a MiG-21 Bison downing an F-16, two jets from different generations. He was captured after landing in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and was held for nearly 60 hours before being released and returned to India on March 1, 2019. In November 2021, Abhinandan, by then a Group Captain, was awarded the Vir Chakra by President Ram Nath Kovind at a ceremony held at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The dogfight occurred a day after the Indian Air Force carried out airstrikes on terror camps in Balakot in retaliation for the Pulwama suicide bombing on February 14, 2019, which killed 40 CRPF personnel. According to his citation, Abhinandan engaged the Pakistani fighter formation despite its 'immense numerical and technological superiority,' and his bold manoeuvres led to 'tactical chaos' among the enemy aircraft. He became the first IAF officer to receive the Vir Chakra since the 1999 Kargil War, when Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja (posthumously) and Wing Commander AK Sinha were honoured with the same wartime gallantry medal.
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Returned deportee Abrego due in US court over bail conditions
* Returned deportee Abrego due in US court over bail conditions Judge questions credibility of cooperating witnesses * Abrego pleads not guilty to migrant smuggling * Trump administration aims to step up deportations By Luc Cohen NASHVILLE, Tennessee, - Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the migrant wrongly deported to El Salvador by President Donald Trump's administration only to be returned to the United States to face criminal charges, is due back in court on Wednesday for a judge in Tennessee to set the conditions of his release from jail. Nashville-based U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes ruled on Sunday that the administration could not continue to detain Abrego, 29, pending trial on two charges accusing him of conspiring with at least five other members of a smuggling ring to bring migrants to the United States illegally. Abrego, a Salvadoran national who had been living in Maryland, has pleaded not guilty. His case has become emblematic of the Republican president's aggressive immigration crackdown and the pushback from rights groups. His lawyers have called the charges an effort by the administration to justify its violation of Abrego's rights by deporting him to El Salvador despite a 2019 judicial order barring such a move on the grounds that he could face persecution by gangs in his home country. Holmes scheduled a hearing for Wednesday at 2 p.m. CDT after expressing skepticism toward the administration's allegations against Abrego including the credibility of cooperating witnesses. Holmes acknowledged in Sunday's ruling that even if Abrego is released from pre-trial detention, he likely would be taken into immigration custody. But the judge's finding that the government had not shown that Abrego was dangerous amounted to a rebuke of Trump's assertion that Abrego is a "bad guy" with a "horrible past." "The court will give Abrego the due process that he is guaranteed," Holmes wrote. Abrego's wife, their young son, and her two children from another relationship are U.S. citizens and live in Maryland. He was deported on March 15 and was returned on June 6. U.S. officials had called his deportation an "administrative error" but initially said they would not bring him back. That raised concerns among Trump's critics that his administration was disregarding civil liberties and due process in its push to step up deportations. In a separate civil case, another judge is investigating whether administration officials violated her order, later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, to facilitate Abrego's return to the United States. The Justice Department ultimately brought Abrego back to face an indictment returned by a grand jury in Nashville charging him with plotting to bring migrants to the United States illegally and then transporting them from the U.S.-Mexico border to destinations in the country. According to the indictment, Abrego often picked up migrants in Houston, and made more than 100 trips between Texas and Maryland between 2016 and 2025. In urging Holmes to detain Abrego, prosecutors alleged that he sometimes transported minors and often brought his own young children on the trips to serve as a cover story. Holmes said she gave little weight to those assertions in part because they came from cooperating witnesses seeking reduced sentences in criminal cases or relief from deportation, including the leader of a human smuggling operation who has been deported five times and convicted of felonies twice. "Each cooperating witness upon whose statements the government's argument for detention rests stands to gain something," the judge wrote. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
