Failure to Formally Communicate Arrest of Khan Wazhul Kamar to CBI Resulted in his Name Being Retained

Failure to Formally Communicate Arrest of Khan Wazhul Kamar to CBI Resulted in his Name Being Retained 

Red Notices (RNs) are issued by the Interpol on the request of the CBI (designated nodal agency in the Government of India) for persons required/wanted/fugitives from justice by various Indian police and investigating agencies and who are believed to be absconding from India. Once the RN is issued by the Interpol, a copy of the same is circulated to the Immigration authorities within India in the form of additions to the ‘look out notice’ list. 

2. At the request of the Mumbai Police dated 02.01.2004, the CBI proposed and got a RN [A-367/3-2004] published from the Interpol with regard to Khan Wazhul Kamar. The RN notice was published on 16.03.2004 and this was communicated by CBI to Mumbai Police on 18.03.2004. 

3. When the Home Secretary level Talks took place on 28-29th March, 2011, as per the usual practice of providing a list of criminals and terrorists suspected to be in Pakistan, a list was handed over including the name of Khan Wazhul Kamar. The list given to Pakistan in the bilateral talks held on 6th March 2007 at Islamabad also included the name of Khan Wazhul Kamar. 

4. It now transpires that the Mumbai Police arrested Khan Wazhul Kamar on 21.05.2010. However, this information of arrest and the request for consequent deletion of the RN was not sent by the Mumbai Police to the CBI. There were further enquiries by CBI with Mumbai Police on the subject-person on 27.01.2011. To this query, Mumbai Police vide letter dated 17.05.2011 has requested the cancelation of RN as “the subject is no more wanted by Mumbai Police on account of his arrest by Mumbai Police on 21.05.2010”. 

5. However, it has been gathered that the Mumbai Police had, in January 2011, conveyed to the IB’s office in Mumbai that Khan Wazhul Kamar had been arrested. This information, unfortunately, was not reflected in the list of fugitives maintained by the authorities and was overlooked while the list was prepared in March 2011. 

6. It will, therefore, be clear that the failure to formally communicate the fact of the arrest of the subject person on 21.05.2010 to the CBI has resulted in the name being retained by CBI. It is possible that the said failure was the result of a genuine oversight by the Mumbai police. At the same time, there was also a lapse on the part of IB in not reflecting the information received by it while preparing the list in March 2011.