NIA’s Move To Join ED Probe Into 2022 Coimbatore Blast Leads To Agency Turf Dispute

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) last week sought to join the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) interrogation of key suspects in the 2022 Coimbatore bomb blast case, but its request was rejected by a special court.

The October 23, 2022, vehicle-borne explosion outside the Arulmigu Kottai Sangameshwarar Thirukovil temple in Coimbatore killed suicide bomber Jameesha Mubeen. The NIA, which has been investigating the case, has arrested more than a dozen people in connection with the blast.

The ED filed a money laundering case in June after receiving information about the alleged financing activities of the Islamic State-inspired module linked to the blast. The agency approached a Chennai special court seeking permission to interrogate four accused, including alleged key masterminds Umar Faaruq and Sheikh Hidayatullah, who are lodged in Tiruchirappalli Central Prison.

The ED also sought to question Aboo Hanifa and Pavas Rahman, both lodged in Puzhal Central Prison.

According to the ED, Hidayatullah and Faaruq allegedly orchestrated a fake COVID-19 vaccination certificate scam during 2021-22 to generate proceeds of crime for terror activities. The operation was allegedly facilitated by Rahman and another accused, Sharan Mariappan, who is out on bail, while Hanifa allegedly routed the proceeds.

The ED has also alleged that Hidayatullah was in contact with Maulvi Zahran bin Hashim, whom investigators have identified as a mastermind of the April 21, 2019, Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka.

The agency alleged that the funds generated through the scheme were used to procure explosive materials and other resources for the Coimbatore blast.

The financial crimes agency told the court that interrogating the accused was necessary to “unearth the complete modus operandi and money trail”. It sought four days of custody for questioning Hidayatullah and Faaruq and six days for Hanifa and Rahman.

The NIA, which is investigating the underlying criminal case, described the ED as a “third party” and said it had no objection to the ED questioning and recording the statements of the accused. However, it requested that its chief investigating officer and team be allowed to attend the interrogation sessions.

The NIA argued that its presence would allow it to assess whether any new information disclosed during the ED’s investigation could provide fresh leads for its own further investigation. It also maintained that its participation would not interfere with the ED probe.

While allowing the ED’s plea, the court said in its September 10 order that it was “not inclined to permit” the NIA to join the interrogation.

A senior government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Indian criminal procedure does not expressly provide for two independent investigation agencies to jointly interrogate an accused, particularly when they are investigating separate FIRs.

“Indian criminal procedure does not contain a provision which expressly authorises two independent investigation agencies to jointly interrogate an accused, especially when they have separate first information reports (FIRs),” the official said.

The official added that such coordination could take place through a court order or an official government decision establishing a joint team or special investigation team, neither of which had been issued in the Coimbatore blast investigation so far.

“We have seen this happen unofficially so many times,” the official added.

A second official said the NIA could have asked the ED to share details of its interrogation with the agency later through informal channels.