The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the plea filed by Rona Wilson, one of the accused within the Bhima-Koregaon violence case, earlier than the Bombay High Court in search of quashing of the chargesheet filed in opposition to him, saying the allegations levelled by him in opposition to the central probe agency of “planting documents in his laptop” had been “uncalled for”.
The Central agency additionally stated that the report of the US-based consultancy was not half of the chargesheet filed in opposition to him and due to this fact can solely be raised throughout trial and can’t be relied upon by the petitioner whereas submitting a petition earlier than 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 firm, which concluded that his laptop was “infected with a malware” allegedly planted via an electronic mail on June 13, 2016 — two years previous to his arrest on June 6, 2018.
The chargesheet, during which he and 15 different academicians and activists are named, accuses them of conspiring in opposition to the Union authorities. Wilson additionally challenged his sanction beneath the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought to set it apart.
Wilson’s petition said that after studying that his arduous disk contained malware, the petitioner, via his counsel, had approached the American Bar Association to assist conduct an impartial forensic evaluation of the clone copy of the digital gadget that was seized.
The affidavit filed via Vikram Khalate, Superintendent of Police, NIA, Mumbai Branch, said that it’s “pertinent” to notice that the NIA, as an investigation agency, took over the case on January 24, 2020, whereas the Pune Police had initially 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 said.
The NIA claimed that Wilson himself shouldn’t be certain of the one who has allegedly planted the documents and due to this fact all the petition is “vague” and can’t be thought of 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 learn.
Stating that every one contentions raised by Wilson are “entirely” based mostly on the US-based consultancy report, the affidavit added that the identical doesn’t kind half of the chargesheet filed by the NIA and Pune Police.
It additional argued that documents which aren’t an element of the chargesheet can’t be relied on by the petitioner and in case if Wilson desires to rely on such a report and feels that he has a case, the one avenue obtainable is utilizing it through the trial.
On Wilson’s declare of the “incriminating” documents being planted for over 22 months previous to their seizure with out his information, the NIA stated, “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 additional said that whereas the trial is pending and the matter is sub-judice earlier than the particular NIA court docket 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 more likely to hear Wilson’s plea on May 4 once more.