The Hindu : New Delhi News : Did the police go overboard in Rahul Mahajan case?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Jun 17, 2006

New Delhi

New Delhi

Did the police go overboard in Rahul Mahajan case?

Every investigating agency has to be aware about the evidence on record, observes Prashant Pandey

With the special court prima facie rejecting some of the many allegations levelled by the Delhi police against Rahul Mahajan following the death of his late father's personal secretary Bibek Moitra and his own hospitalisation after alleged drug abuse on June 2, the question being asked in the Capital right now is whether the police overreached themselves in handling this case. And, if so, what could be the possible reasons behind it?

The police initially booked Rahul Mahajan under one of the lighter sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Prevention) Act as there were indications that both he and Moitra had consumed alcohol and drugs.

However, there were doubts about the quantity and nature of the drug consumed and the police also did not make any seizure to base their case on. But they subsequently slapped charges under additional sections against Rahul Mahajan, charging him with allowing his premises to be used for an offence under the NDPS Act and also harbouring the offenders.

The police also tried to press the charge of possessing drugs in commercial quantity against him. Such charges under the NDPS Act invite strict legal action and are non-bailable. But the court granted bail to Rahul saying that the allegations were untenable.

So, did the police go overboard? Or was it a case of once-bitten-twice-shy? One of the theories currently doing the rounds is that the police may not have liked to be seen "slack in their approach while handling a high profile case". Only a few months ago they drew flak when all the nine accused in the Jessica Lal murder case were acquitted.

The police, of course, cannot be blamed for investigating the case in its totality. In the event of the police limiting themselves to only certain obvious aspects of the case and with all sorts of conspiracy theories floating about, there was every likelihood of their intentions being doubted.

But then every investigating agency has to be aware about the evidence on record. It is common knowledge that every single charge made against a person has to be backed with concrete evidence. As has already happened, using a vague term like "totality of evidence" does not stand the scrutiny of the courts.

In Rahul Mahajan's case, the police claimed to be trying to unearth the links of those arrested in the case -- raising the spectre of a sinister drug syndicate being run by him and his "aides" -- though they did not have enough evidence to begin with.

On the other hand, there have been several cases where the police have made huge seizures but failed to go on and crack the entire network. It is this difference between a normal investigation and a high-profile one that raises doubts.

Merits of the investigations apart, there are two issues which should be a matter for concern for civil society: Will there ever be a time when the intentions of the police would not come under the scanner while handling a "high-profile" case? And whether there will come a time when cases would be investigated on the basis of their merit and not on the basis of what and how the media portrays it? The police, after all, often claim that "high-profile" and "low-profile" cases are the media's creation.

The answers to both these questions are simple. There has to be standardisation of the legal procedures and the law has to be applied to everyone in an objective manner without making a distinction between the rich and poor. But this is an ideal that is likely to remain just that. Simply because there is a lack of political will and police reforms are yet to be initiated.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi