On May 28, 2021, amidst the second wave of the pandemic, the Kasaragod Police made headlines by arresting three individuals and claiming to have confiscated 240kg of marijuana from a tourist bus returning from Andhra Pradesh. The marijuana was found stacked in eight sacks in the bus’s luggage box. The accused were identified as Mohammed Rahis (25), Mohamed Haneef (43), and K Mohammed Kunhi (30).
Following the interrogation of the accused, the police conducted a raid on Haneef’s house on the same day and allegedly discovered an additional 2kg of marijuana. Later, they presented a pistol, a baseball bat, a dagger, and a machete, asserting that these were the “weapons” seized from Haneef’s residence. A photograph of the DySP and the officers involved in the seizure and arrest was released.
Two years later, on July 10, the Kasaragod Additional Sessions Court (II) acquitted all three accused due to insufficient evidence. The defense lawyer argued that the police had mishandled the documentation and contradicted themselves in court. One notable inconsistency was the transformation of the pistol seized from Haneef’s house into a torch during the court proceedings. Advocate K P Pradeep Kumar, representing the first accused Mohammed Rahis, pointed out that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain these contradictions.
Haneef was represented by advocate A C Sukumaran, while Mohammed Kunhi was represented by advocate I V Pramod.
The defense further highlighted flaws in the documentation. The tourist bus belonged to Rahis’ father, and the police claimed they had obtained special permission from the Regional Transport Office to transport migrant workers. However, upon returning, they were caught attempting to smuggle marijuana.
According to Advocate Pradeep Kumar, Inspector Sreejith Koderi, the Vidyanagar Station House Officer, and his team intercepted the empty bus at Chettumkuzhi near Vidyanagar based on information provided by DySP Sadanandan. They reportedly seized eight sacks containing 240kg of marijuana. However, inconsistencies arose regarding the timeline of events. While Koderi stated that he and his team returned to the police station and registered the case by 11:09 am, another officer claimed they were at the scene at 12:45 pm.
Further discrepancies were discovered in Koderi’s notebook, which stated that they visited Haneef’s house at 11 pm on May 28. However, the search list recorded the time as 3 pm. Advocate Pradeep Kumar highlighted that this could not be accurate, as the police had already shared details of the seizure with reporters by the evening. Additionally, the 2kg of marijuana allegedly seized from Haneef’s house was not weighed on-site.
The defense also questioned the competence of trained police officers who failed to differentiate between a torch and a pistol. Moreover, the prosecution’s lab tests on samples collected from the sacks revealed discrepancies in the weights, with one sample containing 28 grams and another containing 18 grams. The prosecution failed to provide an explanation for these inconsistencies.
Although the prosecution produced two eyewitnesses, they could not identify the accused individuals. These witnesses testified that they saw the police retrieving sacks of marijuana from inside the bus and the luggage box. However, this contradicted the police’s statement that all eight sacks were found solely in the luggage box.
Advocate Pradeep Kumar contended that the seizure from Haneef’s house should have been treated as a separate case. However, the police and prosecution erroneously combined the two cases, resulting in a botched investigation.
Post Your Comments