Mumbai: A special MCOCA court on Wednesday issued a show cause notice to the investigating officer in 2024 murder case of senior NCP leader Baba Siddique “for prima facie wilful disobedience” of the court’s earlier order directing steps to secure the presence of absconding accused Anmol Bishnoi.Assistant commissioner of police Subhash Dudhgaonkar has been directed to file a written explanation on or before August 12, to show cause “as to why appropriate action should not be initiated” against him.Emphasising the obligation of investigating authorities to obey court orders, the judge observed, “Judicial orders are required to be obeyed by authorities entrusted with the administration of criminal justice. Once a lawful direction is issued by a competent court, it is incumbent upon the investigating officer to make sincere and bona fide efforts to comply with the same,” special judge Satyanarayan R Navander said. “In the present case, prima facie, the conduct of the investigating officer reflects deliberate disregard of the directions…”Siddiqui was gunned down on October 12, 2024, as he was leaving his son Zeeshan Siddiqui’s office in Bandra East.Bishnoi, alleged to be the main accused at whose behest the killing was carried out, is currently lodged in Tihar Jail after being arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Delhi following deportation from the US in November last year.On July 10, calling it unfortunate that the court has to issue directions to ensure compliance with procedure, the judge had directed the prosecution to secure Bishnoi’s custody and sought a compliance report after two weeks. The court had noted that if physical custody could not be obtained, Bishnoi’s production through videoconferencing could be explored. The court had also indicated that the investigating officer could visit the jail for interrogation, if permissible, while also securing Bishnoi’s virtual presence before the city court so that the trial was not delayed.The order came on a plea filed by Siddique’s wife Shehzeen, who alleged that the prosecution was deliberately avoiding taking the principal accused into custody. Advocates Pradip Gharat and Trivankumar Karnani, appearing for Shehzeen, submitted that the police were avoiding taking his custody to prevent the names of the “actual” conspirators from being revealed.The prosecution had argued that Bishnoi’s physical custody was necessary for interrogation, but such custody could not be obtained because the Government of India had, by an order dated December 5, 2025, prohibited Bishnoi’s removal from Tihar Jail for one year or until the conclusion of the Delhi case, whichever is earlier.Subsequently, the investigating officer obtained a production warrant from the Mumbai court and moved a Delhi court for Bishnoi’s physical production. The Delhi court rejected the request, relying on the same central government restraint order.On Wednesday, the intervenor filed another plea, formally accusing the police of filing an evasive, dishonest, and misleading report, in an alleged attempt to save the accused from a lawful trial.The MCOCA court found the compliance report filed by the police inadequate. The order recorded that the report was “conspicuously silent regarding any effort made to comply with the directions issued by this court in its order”. The court further noted, “There is no explanation as to why no attempt was made to secure the presence of the accused through videoconferencing or by adopting any other legally permissible mode as indicated by this court.”When Dudhgaonkar appeared before the court, he submitted that proper investigation could not be carried out unless Bishnoi’s physical custody was obtained, and therefore the option of production through videoconferencing was not pursued. Rejecting this explanation, the court observed, “The explanation offered by the investigating officer is wholly unsatisfactory. The directions issued by this court were explicit.”The court said the investigating officer had merely repeated an exercise “which was bound to fail in view of the existing restraint order” instead of making genuine efforts to comply with the court’s directions. The order stated, “The compliance report does not disclose any endeavour to implement the directions of this court in their true letter and spirit.”
