For three days, two ‘food delivery agents’ visited several housing societies in the Vasai-Virar area of Palghar district of Maharashtra – in search of an “address” – but did not deliver parcels. A pick-up tempo driver hovered around the industrial area and frequently sought directions from security guards. Three ‘customers’ made rounds of commercial complexes, calling out to the security guards to ask for help in finding an office or establishment.
In reality, this was a team of officers of the Vadodara city Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) looking for an egg shop owner from Vadodara city, who had been on the run and evaded arrest in connection with the alleged kidnapping of a teenaged minor girl in 2006 after allegedly promising marriage.
After three days of searching premises in a span of around 100 km, the DCB said on Friday that the accused had been located.
However, with no previous or latest photo of the accused available, the task was not as simple as it sounded. The Vadodara DCB was only relying on the description of the accused in the 20-year-old case file – he had a mole on his right cheek and was addicted to tobacco. His age at the time of the offence was around 35 years. It would mean conducting a manual search to track down the accused, now aged about 55, in the entire area of 311 square km.
Inspector R G Jadeja of the Crime Branch told this newspaper, “As per police records, the accused had never been arrested, nor was the minor traced and rescued. The minor and the accused met each other as he then ran an egg shop near her residence, as per the police case. The accused allegedly lured the minor with promises of a better life and took her away from the legal guardianship of her parents… The sections invoked in the case were also pertaining to luring a woman for marriage and kidnapping her..”
It was only recently, through human sources and technical analysis, that the Vadodara DCB tracked down the accused – Firoz Khan Pathan – to Vasai-Virar in Palghar, where he was purportedly working as a security guard. Led by sub-inspector B S Vala, the team including Hamir, Bahadursinh, Devendrasinh, Shaktisinh, Gokul, Suresh, Kalpesh and Nidhi, arrived in Palghar and lay in wait for three days, gathering more information through local sources by posing as delivery agents, customers at commercial complexes and pick-up drivers.
While one unit went around posing as food delivery agents, striking up conversations with security guards under the pretext of locating addresses, a policeman scanned the industrial areas, posing as a pick-up driver, seeking directions. The third went around as a customer to commercial complexes and malls. All the officers were instructed to communicate only in Hindi – rather than Gujarati – to avoid suspicion.
Story continues below this ad
A breakthrough came when the officer posing as a customer landed up at a commercial complex, Infinity Square, and found a security guard that matched the description in the files. He had a mole on his right cheek, he was chewing on tobacco and appeared to be in his 50s.
Once identified as the “best possible suspect”, the team of five officers reached the commercial complex the following day, and confronted him. On checking his identity proof and Aadhar card, it was confirmed that he was the accused they were looking for.
The DCB brought Pathan to Vadodara and handed him over to the police station concerned. However, the twist in the tale was that the ‘victim’ who the accused abducted had returned home a few years ago – unknown to the police – and remarried. Inspector Jadeja said, “Upon questioning the accused, we learnt that the girl he abducted returned after a few years, separating from the accused. She later got married and is currently settled with her family…”
Personnel at the local police station said that the accused was produced before a magistrate and sent to judicial custody on Friday. Assistant Commissioner of Police Pranav Kataria told this newspaper, “The accused was sent to judicial custody by a jail warrant. Since we did not need his custody, we did not seek it. The complainant did not inform the police about her return but it is also not known if the victim had reconciled with her family. At the moment, we have not called in anyone for recording their statements as the woman is now settled after her marriage.”
