No Namaz At Work, No Landline Calls: NIA's 26/11 Chargesheet Reveals Headley's Mumbai Sham | Exclusive

Last Updated:February 25, 2026, 14:55 IST

Statements of a former employee of the so-called immigration law centre show that Headley managed the office largely on his own and no actual visa applications were ever processed

A new supplementary chargesheet filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has shed fresh light on how 26/11 attacks co-accused David Coleman Headley allegedly operated a front office in Mumbai that investigators now describe as a facade—part of the larger conspiracy behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

CNN-News18 has exclusively accessed details of the chargesheet, which include excerpts of statements from a former employee of the so-called immigration law centre in Mumbai. The revelations shed light on the inconsistencies in the office’s functioning, suggesting it was never a genuine visa consultancy, but a cover.

The Namaz Detail

One detail that stands out in the chargesheet is religious practice—or the lack of it—inside the office premises.

According to the former employee’s statement, Headley never offered Namaz inside the office, despite presenting himself publicly as a practising Muslim. Instead, he would visit a mosque near the fort area to pray.

Investigators believe the detail is significant as it reflects how carefully Headley compartmentalised his identity and movements, maintaining appearances while avoiding patterns that could draw suspicion within his immediate workspace.

A Visa Office That Processed No Visas

The former employee told investigators that Headley managed the Mumbai office largely on his own and though the office appeared to have clients, no actual visa applications were ever processed. They added that there was little to no legitimate business activity despite the formal setup.

This aligns with earlier findings that the immigration office was allegedly used as a cover for reconnaissance activities ahead of the 26/11 attacks.

Suspicious Communication Patterns

The chargesheet also highlights unusual communication practices. For instance, Headley never took calls on the office landline and all communications were conducted through his personal mobile phone. He also did not send emails from the office computer and instead frequented a nearby cyber cafe for work.

Investigators suspect these methods were deliberately adopted to avoid creating traceable digital or telephonic records linked to the office.

Travel Beyond Mumbai

The former employee further revealed that during his time in India, Headley travelled not just within Mumbai but also to Pushkar and Delhi. However, the employee stated he had no knowledge of the purpose of those visits.

Investigative agencies have long maintained that Headley conducted extensive reconnaissance across multiple Indian cities in the run-up to the attacks.

The supplementary chargesheet was filed following the extradition and subsequent arrest of Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a known associate of Headley. According to previous court proceedings and testimonies, Rana allegedly helped facilitate Headley’s India operations by enabling the establishment of the immigration office as a front.

Headley, who later turned approver in US proceedings, had provided testimony detailing aspects of the conspiracy that were subsequently used in Indian investigations.

A Carefully Constructed Front

Investigators now argue that the immigration law centre was less a business enterprise and more a logistical node in a terror conspiracy that allowed Headley to establish a legitimate-looking presence in Mumbai, move freely under commercial cover, avoid digital footprints within the office, and maintain operational secrecy.

The NIA’s latest filing adds another layer to the long-running probe into the 26/11 attacks, reinforcing the agency’s position that the Mumbai office was a calculated facade.

News india No Namaz At Work, No Landline Calls: NIA's 26/11 Chargesheet Reveals Headley's Mumbai Sham | Exclusive

Read More