File photo of Rona Wilson. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the plea filed by Rona Wilson, one of the accused in the Elgaar Parishad case, before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the chargesheet filed against him, saying the allegations levelled by him against the central probe agency of “planting documents in his laptop” were “uncalled for”.
The Central agency also said that the report of the US-based consultancy was not part of the chargesheet filed against him and therefore can only be raised during trial and cannot be relied upon by the petitioner while submitting a petition before the High Court.
The NIA filed an affidavit in reply to Wilson’s writ petition filed in February which referred to a report by Arsenal Consulting, a US-based digital forensics consulting company, which concluded that his computer was “infected with a malware” allegedly planted through an email on June 13, 2016 — two years prior to his arrest on June 6, 2018.
The chargesheet, in which he and 15 other academicians and activists are named, accuses them of conspiring against the Union government. Wilson also challenged his sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought to set it aside.
Wilson’s petition stated that after learning that his hard disk contained malware, the petitioner, through his counsel, had approached the American Bar Association to help conduct an independent forensic analysis of the clone copy of the electronic device that was seized.
The affidavit filed through Vikram Khalate, Superintendent of Police, NIA, Mumbai Branch, stated that it is “pertinent” to note that the NIA, as an investigation agency, took over the case on January 24, 2020, whereas the Pune Police had originally registered the FIR at Vishrambag Police station.
“I further stoutly deny the report of M/s Arsenal Consultancy and also the report of American Bar Association. I say that contention made in the petition regarding these facts are not admitted by me, they are disputed questions of fact and hence cannot be entertained in present writ petition,” Khalate stated.
The NIA claimed that Wilson himself is not sure of the person who has allegedly planted the documents and therefore the entire petition is “vague” and cannot be considered by HC.
“…the petitioner further contends and admits that the attacker had control over the command and control (C2) server and a used virtual proxy server (VPS), making it difficult to identify the exact internet protocol address… to identify the attacker,” the plea read.
Stating that all contentions raised by Wilson are “entirely” based on the US-based consultancy report, the affidavit added that the same does not form part of the chargesheet filed by the NIA and Pune Police.
It further argued that documents which are not a part of the chargesheet cannot be relied on by the petitioner and in case if Wilson wants to rely upon such a report and feels that he has a case, the only avenue available is using it during the trial.
On Wilson’s claim of the “incriminating” documents being planted for over 22 months prior to their seizure without his knowledge, the NIA said, “This means that the alleged attack has taken place even before the prosecuting agencies have come into the picture. This being the position, the contention of the petitioner that he is innocent and is framed into this by the prosecuting agency is self-defeating and incorrect.”
The Central agency further stated that while the trial is pending and the matter is sub-judice before the special NIA court in Mumbai, “Arsenal Consultancy had no locus to give such opinion without permission of the Court and whether the UAPA sanction against Wilson was justified or not can be decided during the trial”.
HC is likely to hear Wilson’s plea on May 4 again.
- The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
