Intelligence Bureau Officer Arrested After False Bomb Threat on IndiGo Flight Sparks Controversy
Raipur, Chhattisgarh – A mid-air scare aboard an IndiGo flight traveling from Nagpur to Kolkata on November 14 has taken a dramatic turn with the revelation that the man arrested for triggering the emergency landing is an Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer. Animesh Mandal, a 44-year-old deputy superintendent-rank officer stationed in Nagpur, was apprehended by Raipur police after allegedly informing the flight crew about a bomb on board, leading to the flight’s diversion and a thorough search that ultimately yielded no explosives. The incident has raised questions about the handling of the situation, particularly the delayed disclosure of Mandal’s official status and the validity of the charges against him.
The flight, carrying 187 passengers, was rerouted to Raipur after Mandal’s alleged communication to the crew mid-flight. Upon landing, security personnel conducted a comprehensive search of the aircraft and luggage, but no bomb was found. Raipur police subsequently arrested Mandal under Section 351 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication) and provisions of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982. The arrest has sparked controversy, with Mandal’s lawyer, Faizal Rizvi, asserting his client’s innocence and raising concerns about the procedural aspects of the case.
Rizvi contends that Mandal, acting on intelligence received from a source, genuinely believed there was a bomb on board and acted out of concern for public safety. He questions the delay in revealing Mandal’s IB affiliation to the public and the rationale behind pressing charges against an officer who, he argues, was simply performing his duty. The lawyer also highlighted a perceived legal hurdle in the case, arguing that under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, such cases should be tried only by a special court, which currently does not exist in Chhattisgarh. He intends to approach the High Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction, to seek bail for his client.
Raipur Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Santosh Singh, however, maintains that the arrest was justified. He explained that the IB was immediately notified upon Mandal’s detention, and the arrest followed a joint interrogation by local police and IB officials, which concluded that the information provided by Mandal was false. SSP Singh emphasized that Mandal’s actions caused widespread panic among passengers and crew, putting their lives at risk. He reiterated that the arrest was made in accordance with the law, given the disruption caused and the potential threat to safety.
The incident has brought into sharp focus the complex interplay between national security procedures and individual rights. While Mandal’s lawyer maintains his client acted on credible intelligence, the police assert the information was false, leading to a potentially dangerous situation. The case raises questions about the protocols for verifying intelligence received on board a flight, especially when it originates from a member of a security agency. The legal arguments surrounding the jurisdiction of the case and the interpretation of the applicable laws add another layer of complexity.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case will likely draw attention to the challenges faced by security agencies in handling sensitive information in real-time, particularly within the confined and high-stakes environment of air travel. The outcome of the case will also set a precedent for future incidents involving intelligence officers and potential threats to aviation security, offering clarity on legal procedures and the delicate balance between national security and individual liberties. The court’s decision will have significant implications for the interpretation of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act and the handling of similar situations in the future.
