00:00 Hello everyone this is Aminah Ansari welcome to HW News English
00:04 There are some updates on the 26/11 Mumbai attack which happened back in 2008 which claimed
00:11 many lives and left a trauma for many. One of the accused in the 26/11 attack, Tahabur
00:18 Rana is a step closer to extradition to India after the court in the US rejected the writ
00:23 of Hibbius Corpus filed by him. Tahabur Rana is a Pakistani origin Canadian businessman
00:29 who is counted as one of the planners of the 26/11 attack. After this rejection in the
00:35 US court, this paved the way for the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to issue a certificate
00:41 for Rana's extradition to India. Rana is facing this trial in the US court for his
00:47 alleged involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. However, Rana has filed an appeal
00:52 against the order and sought a stay on his extradition to India till the time his appeal
00:57 in the US court is heard. In June of this year, Rana submitted a writ of Hibbius Corpus
01:04 contesting a court decision that granted the US government's appeal for the extradition
01:09 of the individual accused in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks to India. Rana had only made
01:14 two basic arguments in the writ. First, he claimed that he cannot be extradited because
01:20 India plans to prosecute him in the same act for which he was charged in the United States
01:25 court. His second argument was that the government has not established that there is a probable
01:30 cause to believe that Rana committed the Indian offences. The US court had denied both arguments
01:36 of Rana over the legitimacy of Rana's business in India. The US attorney argued that Rana's
01:43 claim about his legitimacy of his business in Mumbai falls flat. The attorney said that
01:49 evidences does not support Rana's assertion that his Mumbai office conducted legitimate
01:54 business. And even if it did, the engagement of his legitimate business activities does
02:00 not prelude a finding that Rana's business also served as a cover for Headley's terrorism-related
02:05 activities in Mumbai. The attorney argued that there is no surety whether Rana lacked
02:11 knowledge of Headley's activities. He further tabled a point that even if Rana hoped to
02:16 continue business operations in Mumbai, then neither Rana nor Headley renewed the business
02:21 lease that expired approximately two weeks before the start of Mumbai attacks. The attorney
02:26 further stated the fact that Rana received a warning before the attacks but does not
02:32 prelude a finding of probable cause. It was also put in court that when Headley learned
02:38 that Rana was going to travel to India in fall of 2008, he warned Rana that an attack
02:43 may be forthcoming. An FBI intercept revealed that Rana told Headley that their conspirator
02:50 had warned him that the Mumbai attacks were imminent.
02:54 That's all for this news report. For more such news and updates subscribe to SW News English.
02:59 [MUSIC PLAYING]
Comments