This
Sunday, lunch for me was in the sun with a group of retired
officers. Expectedly, the killings of poor children in Nithari in
Delhi's neighborhood exercised everyone's mind. Accusing fingers
were leveled, administrations charged, services blamed, designations
and characters ripped to shreds. Everyone expressed shame, shock and
indignation.
Bureaucratic grapevine had more information than had hitherto
appeared in print or visual media. Waxing eloquent, the best
informed in the matter, held fort: Nithari would never have been
exposed, he said, but for the dogged determination of a father
allegedly living off the income from flesh trade of his daughter; to
investigate and pursue the case of her sudden disappearance that had
put an end to the handsome flow of money that helped keep home fires
burn.
He was aware just where she had been to before she disappeared - and
informed the police of the details. But of course, he could not tell
them she had gone to the mansion at D-5 Setor-31 for a suspected
sexual rendezvous. He merely informed the cops that she did not
accompany him to his work place that day like she usually did, but
was to follow later and meet him outside the very house that has now
gained notoriety. He even told the police that he suspected the
house occupants for her disappearance.
The girl had disappeared in May last year. The police ignored the
father's report. They were of course privy to the happenings at this
house. There had been complaints earlier of a prostitution racket.
The occupants were even summoned to the police station and
questioned. But mighty politicians and police officers were regulars
at this place. So how could local law enforcement officers
interfere! They wouldn't dare. The police merely told the father
that she must have found greener pastures for her beat and may soon
turn up.
So deep-rooted was police involvement in the sleaze and debauchery
at D-5, the narrator went on, that they failed to link up the
endless series of other disappearances earlier reported and
currently being reported from the area. How could they?
In most missing reports they had shooed away the complainants,
initially reassuring them the missing could still be around and may
return soon, then asking the complainants to look for the missing
themselves, and later even feeding them stories about their wards
having eloped or run away for prostitution. Most missing reports did
not see the light of day in police records, and where they did were
not paid the attention due.
I remembered something connected. Speaking at a panel discussion
organized by One-World South Asia at the India International Centre
in September, Bhuvan Ribhu, an activist from NGO Bachpan Bachao
Andolan, had lamented that enforcement agencies are unable to
stop millions of children from disappearing in India. He had even
cited the Noida village case for unaccounted missing children over a
period of time. Then amid the furor and media hype during the Anant
Gupta kidnapping case in Noida that followed, a news agency also
exposed the 38 others reported missing in the area. But others
failed to pick this up.
I dragged myself back to the present. The aggrieved father wouldn't
give up - everyone listened attentively. He kept naming Moninder
Singh Pandher and Surender Koli as responsible for his daughter's
disappearance. And then he approached the courts. NOIDA Sector 20
police finally relented and registered a case only in October after
the local court's order. Moninder, however, went to the Uttar
Pradesh High Court in Allahabad seeking quashing of the FIR. The
high court, seized of the matter, declined his request; and instead
directed that a deputy superintendent of police should investigate
the case. Even so, the duo was summoned for questioning only in
early December but allowed to return home without much ado -
allegedly due to gross negligence, connivance and active collusion.
The parent pressed on - kept up the pressure. He had told the police
his daughter was in possession of her mobile phone the day she
disappeared. He urged them to put the telephone under surveillance.
The telephone company traced the IEME number of the cell phone to
Moninder's house and informed the police. It took four more days to
link the instrument to the SIM card being used on it. The SIM card
led to Surendra's address - again the same D-5. But the cops did not
bring him in till Dec 28. His interrogation this time though,
especially in the face of the cell phone surveillance reports, made
him spill the beans, and the skeletons to roll out of the drain -
Dec 29 onwards...
Our worthy narrator concluded: The details have all been confirmed
in Surendra's narco-analysis test. Allegedly the girl was a regular
at the house, charging Rs.3,000 on each occasion. Surendra, who had
the glad eye for the boss's spoils, called her this time when the
boss was away but not really aware of the terms of engagement. When
she demanded her usual fare, he was taken aback... telling her he
had not more than Rs.500.
On the pretext of making her coffee, he is supposed to have delayed
her exit, even as a diabolical plan was forming in his mind to
finish her off, as he was accustomed to do with the other minors
lured to the house earlier. The rest is history....
(Maxwell Pereira is a former
joint commissioner of Delhi Police. He can be reached at
mfjpkamath@gmail.com)
(c) Boloji.com :
1999–2008 : All
Rights Reserved Boloji.com is owned and managed by Boloji Media Inc Privacy Policy |
Disclaimer
No part of this Internet site may
be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
