One more terror suspect arrested in Bangalore

Bangalore Police Commissioner Jyoti Prakash Mirji flanked by Director General of Police Lalrokhuma Pachau (right) and Joint Commissioner B. Dayanand at a press conference in Bangalore. File photo: G.P. Sampath Kumar
Bangalore Police Commissioner Jyoti Prakash Mirji flanked by Director General of Police Lalrokhuma Pachau (right) and Joint Commissioner B. Dayanand at a press conference in Bangalore. File photo: G.P. Sampath Kumar
Hailing from Nanded, he had gone into hiding in the city after the first set of arrests

The Central Crime Branch of the Bangalore police arrested one more person as part of its ongoing anti-terror investigation. With this, the number of arrests has gone up to 13.
Twenty-two-year-old Mohammed Akram — with aliases such as Khalid and Imran Khan — was allegedly arrested late on Saturday evening from the busy Majestic area, which is the city’s main transit point.
He was allegedly trying to flee the city.
The police claim to have recovered a foreign-made 7.65 mm pistol, 16 live rounds as well as other incriminating material from him. Mr. Akram allegedly told the police that he is from Nanded in Maharashtra (where the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad recently arrested four men).
Revealing these details at a press conference here on Sunday, Bangalore Police Commissioner B.G. Jyothi Prakash Mirji said Akram had managed to evade arrest so far and had gone into hiding after the first set of arrests where 11 men were taken into custody on charges of plotting to assassinate some politicians and journalists.
For the first time since the August 29 operation came to light, Mr. Mirji confirmed that those arrested by the Maharashtra ATS and those arrested by the Bangalore police were part of the same alleged terror module. However, he refused to comment on whether the Maharashtra ATS and the Bangalore CCB were working together.
Referring to articles in a section of the media, Mr. Mirji appealed to journalists to exercise restraint and caution in reportage.
He said the case was an extremely serious one but it “should not be used to incite communal sentiments.”