POLICE RETURN FIRE
Harried, harassed, criticized and cornered, the Delhi police seem to have made a seemingly valiant attempt to answer the questions raised by us, and later supported by almost the entire media, with regard to the 'encounter' at Batla House. Their answers are contained in a four column story headlined " Cops return fire, blast critics of Jamia shootout " published yesterday ( October 7, 2008 ) in The Times of India, New Delhi. Since we are being unanimously held responsible to have opened the Pandora's box first of all by pointing out the stark anomalies in the police version of the operation in which two alleged terrorists were killed and a high profile police officer lost his life, it would meet the ends of justice if we gave a proper and due appreciation to the story of the police department. But two very pertinent aspects of the above mentioned report are to be kept in mind before we proceed to discuss the points contained therein. Firstly, the report itself mentions that it is a reaction of senior police officers who "flew off the handle' due to the Samajwadi Party leader's 'outburst about the authenticity of the shootout', and, secondly, the 'senior' police officer who has 'replied' to the questions has done so on condition of anonymity because he did not want to join issue with "politicians and human rights activists who have spread a spate of canards to discredit police action". This irresponsible and ill-worded remark, coming as it does from a 'senior' police officer, amply reflects the police mindset and attitude and, in ordinary circumstances, would have been reason enough for us to rubbish and ignore his feeble attempts at explaining police action; but circumstances are not ordinary and so his assertions warrant a close examination in the interest of justice.
Seven points have been raised in the news story on which the police is said to have been wrongly targeted. Let's take them one by one:
The first point is outright disbelief by all and sundry of the police claim that two of the terrorists 'escaped’ from the L-18 flat. In reply to this the officer is quoted as saying, "The escape of two men from the flat is being used to discredit the police. A bogus story is being spread when the fact is that there were terrorists operating from the flat". Where is the 'reply' in this remark? And what, pray, is the 'bogus' story’? To the allegation that the operation that day was being monitored by the Home Minister Patil from the Police Headquarters, the reply as reported is: “There is nothing in the Headquarters which could have facilitated any such exercise between the cops at the spot and the minister". So where all the public money allocated for wireless equipment and other does sophisticated communication devices has gone? If, at any given time, the Union Home Minister cannot communicate with a highly trained and rated police team engaged in a sensitive operation then we sure are living in the Paleolithic age. Another 'senior' officer involved in the investigation stated that apart from those arrested no other student has been questioned. “Not even one student has been questioned" WHY? What kind of investigation is this? Or was it due to a sense of guilt that no other person in Jamia was questioned. This assertion strengthens our considered opinion that the police conducted the raid and 'encounter' without even a preliminary enquiry and took absolutely no pains to justify it by collecting evidence from the area even after the incident. The officer goes on to say that " video clips from the mobile phones of Sajid and Atif , the two men killed in encounter, proved their role in blasts in Gujarat and that cops had also seized a bag in which explosives had been brought from Karnataka by the two men before the Delhi blasts". Apart from the fact that these two facts were not mentioned by either Karnail Singh, JCP, Special Operations Cell, or the Commissioner of Police himself in their press conferences held on the day of the encounter itself, the Karnataka police has vehemently refuted the assertion of the Delhi police that the explosive material was purchased and brought from Udupi in Karnataka. And, in any case, the nature of this kind of evidence can only be properly examined and appreciated in a court of law. Common sense, however, does pose the question as to why any terrorist who goes to a lot of trouble in trying to conceal his real identity and movements for the purpose of terrorist activities should carry video clips of bomb blast anywhere. And carrying video clips alone does not prove him to be the perpetrator of bomb blast, anyway.
About the Arabic headdress used to cover the faces of the accused the officer says, "We have looked into this and he (the sub-inspector who produced the accused in court) did not have a clue (as to what an Arab headdress is). It was used only because it was readily available". He fails to explain who had procured the quite apparently new headdresses and from where. And a sub inspector who does not recognize a signature Muslim headdress when he sees one does not deserve to remain in police service. But the officer seems to justify, rather foolishly, by further remarking, "In any case the name of the organization and also of the accused was all over the place".
As for Sharma not wearing a bullet proof jacket, the cops said that he was a seasoned officer who had gone there for verification. "Only people who have no idea about police operations can say this. The whole world knows that the first person to go there was wearing a tie as he was masquerading as a sales agent. Sharma following him wearing a bullet proof vest would have been a dead giveaway". This is serious: Sharma was a seasoned police officer. In fact he was an 'encounter specialist' and had more than forty 'kills' in as many encounters to his credit. So this tie-wearing officer is the first person to confront people suspected to be 'terrorists' and remains safe. He even alerts the team ( as per police version ) regarding the identities of the inmates of the flat and yet the person who follows him to confront the presumably armed terrorist is none other than an officer not wearing a bullet proof vest and is shot. The tie wearing officer still remains safe ( although by that time the 'terrorists' must have got wise to his real identity ) and even helps the injured officer four floors down to the street level and to the vehicle that took him to hospital. It simply doesn't wash. Even more unfortunate is the fact that if the police version is believed to be true it casts shadows of doubt on the degree of training and preparedness of our police force, not to speak of their strategy-planning capabilities in the face of the terrorist threat. As for Sharma's transfer, the Indian Express news item tells its own tale, and it also quotes a 'senior' police officer. We choose to make no further comments at this stage……

BATLA HOUSE INCOUNTER

“Hathyaar talashi mein baraamad hue to police par goliyaan kaise chaleen?”

One of the basic rules of jurisprudence says, “Hearsay evidence is no evidence ". This rule is religiously followed by our courts to arrive at justice. It contains the innate spirit of the law of evidence. For instance, 'A' says, “I murdered 'B' at the instance of 'C'. Now, although this statement attaches a more serious criminal liability to 'C' yet, as per the basic principles of the law of evidence, 'C' cannot be made liable unless and until the statement of 'A' is not corroborated by some independent circumstances or evidence. This rule of 'corroboration' is so strictly followed that even a self-confessed criminal cannot be condemned and punished until his confession is independently corroborated. In a landmark judgment our Supreme Court has laid down that the power to arrest and justification to arrest are two different positions and should be meticulously understood and followed. To wit, if a murderer points a finger at you and ' this is the man who gave me the murder weapon', the police have the power to arrest you but should not because a mere accusing finger is no justification for your arrest. In this situation, it shall be the bounden duty of the police that they should proceed to investigate along the lines of the allegation, make efforts to collect evidence in support of the allegation and arrest you only if they find at least some logical prima facie evidence in its support.
Let us look at the Batla House encounter in this legal perspective:
According to Delhi police, Gujarat police informed them that as per 'disclosure' made by Abul Bashar some of his accomplices are living in L-18 Batla House. Now on the point of 'disclosure' the law of evidence followed by our courts says that a disclosure per se is not admissible in evidence unless, as a result of that disclosure some recovery is affected, or some evidence to prove the disclosure is unearthed. All disclosures which merely throw an empty allegation can at best be used by the police for investigative purposes. However, immediately after learning of Abul Bashar's disclosure, Delhi police raided L-18, killed two of the inmates (one of whom was even declared to be the ‘mastermind’) arrested a third and made quite a song and dance about the whole sordid affair. And they did all this without any preliminary investigations. It is on record that before the raid at L-18, Delhi police did not know about the identity of any of the inmates. Till date they have not been able to conclusively say who were the two persons who escaped on the fateful day. Here is an excerpt from a news item carried on page 2 of The Times of India dated 21.09.08.
" The police said while the room carried a casual look, in which students and bachelors could have been living, a thorough search by ACP Sanjeev Yadav led to the discovery of an AK-47 along with two .30 pistols and six mobile phones ".
The obvious question is that if these weapons were 'discovered' (sic) after a 'thorough search', where are the weapons from which the alleged terrorists fired casing the death of Inspector Sharma. The scenario that emerges from this report and the police claims is this:”
FIVE TERRORISTS ARE HOLDING COUNCIL INSIDE L-18. THEY SPOT THE POLICE COMING UP THE STAIRS AND TWO OF THEM FLEE. THE REMAINING THREE OPEN FIRE ON THE POLICE AND IMMEDIATELY CONCEAL THE WEAPONS. THEN THE POLICE ENTER THE FLAT. THEY SHOOT TWO OF THEM DEAD AND ARREST THE THIRD. LASTLY THE POLICE CONDUCT A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE FLAT AND RECOVER THE WEAPONS USED BY THE TERRORISTS.
Nothing wrong with this scenario. Only difficulty is that it does not in any manner accommodate the alleged 'encounter'.
Terrorism is not only a crime against humanity, it poses a serious threat to the very social fabric of any civilized society and can only be effectively tackled through meticulously planned well concerted efforts. It is quite unfortunate, though, that throughout the country, the police forces and other security agencies are showing a very casual approach and what's going on is somewhat like this; some suspects are arrested in Maharashtra one of whom is promptly given the title of 'mastermind'. On the basis of disclosures made by one or more of them some others are arrested in Gujarat and Gujarat police claim that the actual mastermind is one of their arrestees. It then comes to light that the UP police conducted a successful investigation and arrested some terrorists including a mastermind. It is now the turn of Karnataka police who claim to have worked out the cases of such and such bomb blasts and the mastermind is in their custody. At this juncture Delhi police eliminates two alleged terrorists and declares one of the deceased as the mastermind. The next day they go to the extent of claiming that material for the Delhi blasts was procured from Udupi which claim is bitterly refuted by the Udupi police. As the latest development, Mumbai police declaims that they have 'laid bare' the terrorist network throughout the country and have even arrested the 'master' of the mastermind. In this whole claims, the most unpalatably poignant is the Mumbai police claim that the July 11, 2006 Mumbai blasts were executed by Atif and his two accomplices Bada Sajid and Shahnawaz, although the said Mumbai blasts were probed by the Anti Terrorist Squad of Mumbai police who had filed a charge sheet in the concerned court after the conclusion of their investigation. In that charge sheet it was claimed that the July 11, 2006 Mumbai blasts were orchestrated by a group affiliated to SIMI and a squad sent by Lashkar-e-Toiba.
We shall explain the departmental, political and other compulsions under which the police is obliged to take such foolish stands only after we have thoroughly analyzed all the terrorists strikes in the country from 2006 to date, the investigations carried out as well as the court verdicts, if any, on them, because we have set out not only to save the innocent from false implication but also to bring the really guilty to book.
In this context, a word about the role of the media, especially the electronic media, seems rather necessary. Fair and honest journalism seeks to keep the public well informed and not to distort public opinion by misinformation or sensationalism. Journalistic exercise reaches its zenith when all acts of the state and social developments are objectively analyzed so as to make them comprehensible by the masses. Not all claims and reports made by the police should be taken on their face value ( they are not admissible in evidence in a court of law, anyway ) unless the same are corroborated by independent circumstances. It has been noticed that in all matters pertaining to terrorism in the country (especially when they are imputed to Indian Muslims) the media assumes the role of the mouthpiece of the police and the govt. and every claim and allegation is sensationalized to the hilt and bandied about as the Gospel truth. So much so that a when a dozen persons belonging to a district having a population of millions (Azam Garh) are arrested for alleged terrorist activities, the entire district is brought under a cloud and promptly given the sobriquet 'Atank Garh'. In our country, from Bodos, Naxalites, Ulfa, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Bajrang Dal in the North to LTT and its splinter groups in the South, there are dozens of terrorist groups having hundreds of thousands of supporters and operatives. Going by the logic floated by a section of the electronic media, should India be declared to be 'terrorist state'?
As things stand, media is printing in block letters with banner headlines, without commenting or analyzing properly, and without even pointing out that the truth could be quite the reverse, whatever claims the police are making from day to day. In this melee and furor created by the police and the media, the truth is trying feebly to raise its voice. However, law has laid down ways and means in the form of rules of procedure, which can lead one to that supreme goal: JUSTICE! But the responsibility to achieve that goal lies not only with us. It lies with you as well.

Sharma was not shot from behind!!
Prof. Dr. A.R.Undre- At a glance
Qualification: M.S (BOM), F.R.C.S. (EDIN), F.R.C.S. (ENG)
Experience: -
1. Resident House Surgeon in General Surgery from 28.11.1961 to 31.7.1962 at the J.J. Group of Teaching Hospitals Bombay 400 008.
2. Resident House Surgeon in Orthopedics from 1.8.1962 to 31.1.1963 at the J.J. Group of Hospital Bombay (Teaching Post)
3. Registrar in General Surgery from 1.2.1963 to 7.7.1965 at the J.J. Group of Hospital Bombay (Work Certified as excellent by the Dean)
4. Registrar in General Surgery from 1.2.1963 to 7.7.1965 at the Weymouth and District Hospital Weymouth Dorset U.K. Work Certified as (Excellent) by the Senior Consultant Surgeon.
5. Registrar in General Surgery for 1 year at Royal Victoria Hospital Bournemouth U.K. Work Certified as excellent by the Senior Consultant Surgeon).
6. Hon. Professor of Surgery Grant Medical College J.J. Hospital Bombay from 13.6.1970 to 4.12.1995(over 25 years).
Present Appointments: -
1. Hon Surgeon Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre Bombay, India.
2. Hon Surgeon Saifee Hospital, Bombay, India.
3. Hon Surgeon Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre Bombay India.
4. Hon Surgeon Habib Hospital, Bombay India.
5. Hon Surgeon Dr. L. H. Hiranandani Hospital Bombay India.
6. Consultant Surgeon Godrej Memorial Hospital Bombay India.
7. Professor of Surgery National Board Examination, New Delhi India.
Dr. A. R. Undre is a surgeon of exemplary caliber. He had a brilliant academic career. He was always a first class student bagging several prizes. In MBBS Degree Examination, he bagged the prestigious Berry Gold Medal in Pharmacology along with several prizes & scholarships. He stood first in Bombay University at the Master of Surgery Degree examinations and secured four gold medals in surgery & Prince of Wales Fellowship of Mumbai University. His hard work as surgical registrar in J. J. Hospital earned him excellent award from the dean. He then proceeded to England wherein he excelled as Registrar & procured the fellowship of Royal College of Surgeons of England as well as Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. He returned to India after a period of three years to serve his fellow citizens. He served J. J. Group of Teaching Hospitals & was professor of surgery at Grant Medical College for over 25 years. During this period, he had the opportunity to operate several complicated cases. He has many innovative surgical techniques of his own to his credit. He wrote several articles in national & international journals. He participated in national & international symposiums & seminars.
Dear Aziz Burney,
Kindly note below my observation of the photo and the report you sent me.
1. How did Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, associate professor of forensic medicine got suspicious of the cause of death. It appears already there was a talk of the unnatural death of Inspector Sharma and hence Dr. Lalwani did the postmortem in camera instead of clearing the controversies he has added to mystery.
2. It appears to be a cover up as no mention of organs injured or major vessels which were punctured.
3. Only Excessive bleeding is a vague explanation unless it mention the organ or the vessel injured for example excessive bleeding from spleen or major vessel like Aorta or its branches or venacava.
4. Furthermore trajectory of bullets from top to bottom means the assailant was on a higher place.
5. The photograph of Inspector Sharma walking with the help of two associates after the shoot out rule out any serious abdominal injury (second bullet injury) when the hand of the victim would go impulsively to the abdominal injury.
Withstanding the above points the postmortem instead of clarifying the cause of death raises serious question about whether Inspector Sharma died on site during encounter with alleged terrorist or elsewhere?

(Prof. Dr. A.R. Undre)

"THE ENCOUNTER"
As a matter of Rule and established practice, such operations are very meticulously planned, outlining the role of each and every member of the raiding party as well as positions to be taken by all of them. It is also predetermined when and under what circumstances fire will be opened and by whom. It is also pre-determined as to who shall "lead" the raid. (Normally, the "leader" in such circumstances is a sharp-shooter who is well insulated against enemy fire by a bullet proof vest etc. and who carries an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Even then, suspects are at first challenged and ordered to surrender themselves and if they don't, or, worse, open fire on the police party, the police resorts to firing. In the case of this "encounter", the police have not even claimed that the door to the L-18 flat was found locked from inside. If it was not, the suspects were caught unawares, and if properly challenged, would have surrendered themselves. It is on record that Inspector Sharma had not accompanied the police party and had joined them later from a hospital where his son was under treatment. And so he was not wearing a bullet proof vest, and yet he is claimed to have "led" the encounter which is just not allowed under the rules.
The incomplete and incoherent account of the "encounter" given so far by the police is ridiculous, to say the least.

Prof. Dr. A. R. Undre
M.S. (BOM), F.R.C.S. (ENG), F.I.C.S. (USA)
Hon. Surgeon Jaslok Hospital, Lilavati Hospital & Head of the department of Surgery Saifee Hospital.

Dear Aziz Burney Saheb,
I must thank you for seeking my comment on the photographs of inspector Sharma who was in an encounter with alleged terrorists. I had the opportunity of treating several cases of stab and bullet wounds in J.J. Govt. Hospital
where was honorary surgeon & professor of surgery for 25 Years. On careful study of the photographs it is shocking to see the inspector Sharma is walking with the help of two of his colleagues while no ambulance is insight which in major operation (encounter) of this type one should be prepared for all eventualities. Usually a person's life can be saved if the bullet doesn't pierce the brain, heart or major vessels like aorta & venecava (main arteries & veins arising from & draining into heart) in which case person will collapse and will not be able to walk.
Barring these injuries the life of a patient can be saved by timely surgerical intervention.
It appears that the people assisting in carrying the injured inspector do not give the impression of being equipped with disaster management which is essential in crisis of this nature where anticipation and quick and timely action could have save the life of the valiant inspector. I would be interested to know the post mortem finding of Inspector Sharma.


The bullet wounds visible on Atif's dead body further confirm our conclusions arrived at after analyzing the photographs of Sajid's dead body. Before proceeding further, however, it seems necessary to point out the cardinal difference between an ante mortem and a post mortem injury. As soon as death occurs heart beat stops and no human or animal can 'bleed' after the heart function ceases because blood circulation ceases. So, however grievous an injury is caused to a dead body it will not bleed. But if a living body is shot blood will spurt or gush out immediately. The bullet wound at the lower part of the back of Sajid's neck tells quite a tale. Not only is blood oozing out after the post mortem examination and washing etc. of the body, but it has powder burns and the characteristic crust of a contact wound. Not even a spot of blood is visible on any of the other bullet wounds on the body. Another important point to be noted here is the fact that a headshot with a gun is taken only when there is full intent to kill, and not to maim or debilitate. The bullet wounds on both the dead bodies show two things beyond doubt.
(1)It looks both the boys were shot dead after they were overpowered or taken at gunpoint and asked to squat on the floor. Had they been shot in an "encounter" Atif would not have sustained bullet injuries on his chest as well as at the back of the neck.
(2)The distances and angles, from which shots were fired, coupled with several other circumstances, clearly indicate that the police party had gone to the spot with a planned intent to eliminate both. There was absolutely no attempt made to take the two deceased into custody.
Atif's body has bullet wounds on the left side of the upper back as well as on the left shoulder blade, but since there was no bleeding these wounds is post mortem. There are two bullet wounds on his chest. The one on his right is so located that the bullet must necessarily have pierced the right lung. In such injuries ( if ante mortem ) there is profuse bleeding from the mouth and the nose, as one breathes one bleeds, but since it was a post mortem wound so there was no such bleeding. On the left side of his chest there is a bullet wound on the lower part of the rib cage. This can be the bullet that presumably, but quite apparently, struck the lower rib, got deflected, struck the back rib and exited through the shoulder blade, but again being post mortem there was no bleeding. This clearly shows that the shot will be fired on the body lying on the floor by a person standing before it and the bullet's trajectory was from an angle of thirty degrees from the horizontal. While these two boys were being killed the third boy (who was arrested) was also present. But his position and movement etc. shall be depicted when we reconstruct the scene.
BOMB MAKING AT L-18:
As per police version the crude bombs ( IEDs as they are universally called ) exploded in Delhi were made at L-18. It is also on record that ammonium nitrate was used in the making of these bombs. It is, however, rather strange that no material pertaining to making bombs etc. was recovered from the site. It is even stranger that not only on the fateful day but even after the so called encounter, not even the common crime team, what to speak of forensic experts visited the scene; nor were sniffer dogs pressed into service to collect evidence of any explosives etc. ever having been stored inside L-18. It may be mentioned in passing that sniffer dogs are nowadays routinely used on all important railway stations and airports for security checking in Bombay and parts of Gujrat.
A FEW THINGS ABOUT AMMONIUM NITRATE : It is neither a naturally occurring substance nor a by product but a chemical compound usually in the form of an odorless white powder at room temperature which is highly soluble in water. Its basic use was in agriculture as a high nitrogen fertilizer. However, due to its oxidizing properties it can make an explosive mixture with any hydrocarbon as diesel, kerosene or even coal dust. Although certain other things are also required to use the mixture as an IED. Following points are relevant to the present issue as far as ammonium nitrate is concerned:
If a shot is fired by a person with an ordinary gun , the escaping gases leave a microscopic residue of cordite on the hand that fired and/or the sleeve of the garment worn by that person at the material time. This microscopic residue can be detected through an electronic microscope and other devices in a forensic lab and used as a clue during investigation or as scientific evidence during a trial. Anyone who has handled fireworks and crackers, especially "Phuljhari" on a festival must have experienced that the residue left on hands remains for days even after washing with soap etc. Likewise, in a place where explosives using ammonium nitrate have been made, even a cursory forensic investigation will detect either the chemical residue or at least the attempt to obliterate that residue if such an attempt has been made.
Even in cases of day to day crimes like burglaries and murders, the Crime Team of the local police arrives on the
scene and performs various tasks like lifting of finger prints to photography of vital materials and clues, and even the dog squad is pressed into service. Any weapons or other material to be seized is seized through duly executed memos in the presence of local witnesses. In the "encounter" at L-18, the legalities not performed and the illegalities resorted to by the police shall be brought forth in detail at a later stage. What seems vitally important to be pointed out right now is this: all govt. agencies charged with the duty of tackling the terrorist problem and situations arising there from ( including the Special Operations Cell of Delhi Police ) are bound not only to follow the law but a set of Rules made by the department as well as the Home Ministry especially when they go about conducting such raids to apprehend suspected terrorists. What are those rules? If the police don't tell you, we shall.

THE ENCOUNTER AT L-18
Delhi Police claim to have "worked out" the Delhi Blasts case: but the following questions cry for answers:
It is claimed that Atif is the "mastermind" behind the blasts, and the conspiracy was hatched in 2005. (Atif must have been 21 years of age at the time). Now look at if from the point of view of Atif being the "mastermind":
Is there evidence to show that Atif lived in Delhi for any considerable length of time? If so, when?
Nothing so far points to the fact that Atif received training in terrorist activities, if he did, where and when?
It has not yet been clarified who was behind the E-mail sent purportedly on behalf of "Indian Mujahideen" claiming responsibility for the blasts.
If the same suspects (two of whom have been killed in the "encounter") caused the Ahmedabad blasts, who were their local contracts and where did they get the raw material (not to speak of the know how) to make those explosive devices.
More than 30 "unexploded" bombs were found in Surat and other parts of Gujrat, but the names of these boys are not being associated with those. WHY?
It has not yet been clarified why these suspects felt the need to have "Police Verification" for themselves immediately after Ahmedabad blasts and a month prior to Delhi blasts for which they provided their genuine particulars.
It is claimed that Atif was being helped by Lashkar-e-Toiba, and the connections of Indian Mujahideen have been taken right up to Al-Qaeda, and Delhi Police seems to have unearthed all this almost overnight; which means that not only Indian Mujahideen but several other "modules" of Lashkar-e-Toiba had been active in the country without any of the intelligence agency being wiser.
Before every Independence day (as on other occasions of national importance) the Intelligence Bureau submits a detailed report to the Union Home Ministry as well as the Delhi Police outlining the security profile and threat perception including any possible or apprehended terrorist strike. It is quite obvious that no such report mentioning any entity called "Indian Mujahideen" was submitted by the IB or any other security/intelligence agency.
At the time of the alleged "encounter", Inspector M.C.Sharma received bullet injuries to which he later succumbed. It was said that the Inspector was shot 3-4 times in the abdomen. Eyewitnesses, however, claim that when the injured inspector was escorted to a vehicle (he remained on his feet) by two of his colleagues, there was no blood or gunshot marks on his white shirt front.
It has not been alleged that the "terrorists" fired from an AK-47. In fact it has not been specified as to who shot Inspector M.C.Sharma and with what weapon. Was he possibly shot by one of the two terrorists who "escaped" the police net.
Inspector M.C.Sharma might have been caught in the crossfire during the shootout and it is quite possible that he received bullets in his back fired by his own colleagues.
It is claimed that Atif had planned to explode 20 "bombs" in Nehru Place market, and yet no explosives or other requisite material has been seized/recovered from the possession of the suspects and/or from L-18. Nor has it been clarified that where from the material used in the explosion was procured and where exactly these explosive devices assembled. A lot of money is required for such operations. Where did it come from?
Who accompanied the raiding police party to identify the suspects. (It is on record that all suspects were identified after the "encounter").
Did these "terrorists" carry/own mobile phones? If yes, where are they to whom the sim cards have been traced, if at all? What did the police learn from the phone records. (It also goes without saying that if the IB had maintained dossiers on these suspects, as has been claimed today, their phone might, as they should, have been tapped. And yet they were successful in their devious plans)
Are Al-Qaeda and the dreaded Lashkar-Toiba active here in India? If so, for what objective?
It is an incontrovertible fact that terrorist activities require training and resources of a very high order. If young boys having a humble family and economic background like the present suspects are being exploited/used for such terrorist strikes, the objective has to be not only enormous but highly destructive for the country. Now who stands to gain in the long run from such inhumanly criminal activities is the biggest question to be addressed for a solution to the problem of terrorism in the country.