Chhota Rajan's return will witness another Delhi-Mumbai turf war

New Delhi, Nov 4: Even before Chhota Rajan has been brought back to India he has indicated that he would prefer being in the custody of the Delhi police and not Mumbai.

There is no doubt that he has antagonized the Mumbai police no end and has even made claims that some members of the police force are hand in glove with Dawood Ibrahim.

The administration in Mumbai has promised to look into these allegations and whether an inquiry yields any result or not, it is a given no gangster can survive unless and until he has the support of the police.

A senior Intelligence Bureau official says that police are paid to look the other way by all gangsters and there are such black sheep in the department.

The statement made by Rajan against the Mumbai police may put a smile on the faces of the Delhi police. It is a well known fact that the Mumbai and Delhi police have sparred several times in the past.

The Delhi police feel that it is the proximity that some Mumbai cops have with the underworld which has led to this rift. However the Mumbai police accuse the Delhi police of being too interfering.

The turf war continues:
There are several instances to show how the Delhi and Mumbai police have fought over cases. One of the biggest reasons for the clash between the two police forces has been the Dawood issue. It is a well known fact that the Intelligence Bureau had planned a hit on Dawood with the help of Chhota Rajan's men.

However for some reason, the Mumbai police decided to execute the warrant against the two shooters and pick them up just as the operation was being finalized. The Mumbai police claim that they only did their job as the two men, Farad Tanesha and Vicky Malhotra were on their wanted list. In Delhi the allegation was that this was an intentional arrest to prevent an operation against Dawood.

The fight over the 13/7 blast accused:

Several blasts rocked the city of Mumbai in July 2013. The Indian Mujahideen orchestrated blasts had become a tough case for the Mumbai police to crack. Yasin Bhatkal the head of the Indian Mujahideen had in fact rented out a house in Byculla, Mumbai from where he is said to have planned the blast.

The Delhi police on the other hand busted a module in Darabhanga, Bihar and picked up several key suspects. The suspects said that it was the IM which was behind the blasts and the investigations even led to information relating to Yasin Bhatkal. The Delhi police had planted a mole in the Indian Mujahideen to track Yasin Bhatkal.

The mole revealed to the Delhi police that Yasin would visit Mumbai to collect his security deposit from Byculla. The Delhi police decided to tip off their Mumbai counterparts about the same. The Mumbai police was accused of picking up the mole instead of following Yasin Bhatkal. This arrest was widely reported and Yasin in the bargain was tipped off. He never went to Byculla.

The Abu Jundal fight:
Abu Jundal was the Hindi tutor of the 10 terrorists who carried out the 26/11 attack. He was deported from Saudi Arabia and the custody battle over Jundal was evident when both the Mumbai and Delhi police claimed for the same.

Jundal although an Indian had operated out of Pakistan for the 26/11 operation. Ideally the case should have been handed over to the NIA directly. However a custody battle between the Delhi and the Mumbai police led to confusion in the investigation.

The IPL betting probe:
It was alleged that the bets were placed in Mumbai when the IPL was on. The Delhi police claimed that they are the ones who tracked the conversation which eventually led up to the arrests. The Delhi police team visited Mumbai and made the arrests a fact that was not liked by their counterparts.

Following the arrests, the Mumbai police launched an independent probe and seized some material relating to the case. The Delhi police was not impressed and accused the Mumbai police of attempting a cover up. The war of words continued for a long time and both police forces carried out independent probes. The end result was a weak probe with contradictions which led to the court refusing to frame charges.

OneIndia news