Bihar upset over K'taka's top-secret anti-terror op

The arrest of Kafeel Akthar, an alleged Indian Mujahideen operative, by the Karnataka police in Bihar has broken into a full-fledged war between the two states, reports Vicky Nanjappa

Bihar Chief Minister Nithish Kumar took objection to the manner in which the operation to arrest Indian Mujahideen operative Kafeel Akthar was carried out by the Karnataka police, and is more irritated with the fact that the latter did not keep his government in the loop before making the arrest.

Karnataka, on the other hand, has termed it as an exceptional situation and has defended the operation by stating that information can always be given later in such a scenario.

The Bihar CM, who has been opposing the National Counter Terrorism Centre, may be trying to build up a stronger case and would like to point out to the Centre that in the event of the NCTC being formed, such operations could increase twofold and cause friction between states.

The Karnataka police may eventually get away with this in a court of law, but may take a beating in the police circles as they have not followed the Standard Operating Procedure.

This is the second time that the Karnataka police have conducted such an operation without the knowledge of their counterparts. The last time was when they arrested Peoples Democratic Party chief Abdul Nasar Madani from Kerala.

Sources in the Bihar police say that there is an unwritten code in such operations, and it ought to have been followed.

"It is only the state police which recognises the pros and cons when an arrest is made. Police from other states cannot just walk in, carry out an arrest and leave the law and order situation to us. Had we been consulted, we could have dealt with it in a better manner and also ensured that there was no law and order problem developing," said a source.

"Kafeel was a lecturer in a college and he did enjoy a certain amount of reputation in his locality. This sort of arrest could well have disturbed the law and order situation. Had the Karnataka police shown us the case against him, then we could have helped them out," the source added.

Sources in the Karnataka police, however, defend their action by stating that there was a need to ensure that this operation was carried out with utmost secrecy.

"Akthar was a known person and if we had a created noise he would have been tipped off and could have escaped. We did not want that to happen. Moreover, we ensured that the operation was carried out on a low-key basis. We had no intention of disturbing the law and order situation there," a source from the Karnataka police said.

Akthar's name cropped up during the interrogation of Kamal Hasan, another IM operative from Bihar. The Bengaluru police have been on his trail for quite some time, and it was finally a tip-off from Andhra Pradesh which helped them track him down to Darbhanga in Bihar.

While the initial charge against Akthar speaks about his larger involvement in the Chinnaswamy stadium blasts in Bengaluru, the police are keen to find out his exact relationship with another IM biggie, Yasin Bhatkal. It is alleged that Kafeel had provided Yasin with a SIM card under his (Akthar's) name and this according to the police establishes a vital link.

The legal debate

Such operations have been carried out by many state police teams across the country. When the police believe that an accused shares a comfortable equation in their home state, they go about the operation without making an announcement.

The recent case where Yasin Bhatkal managed to give the Delhi police the slip from Maharashtra is an example of why police officials want their operations to remain a quiet affair.

However, coming to the Kafeel Akthar operation, it was strange why the Karnataka police produced him before a court in Ranchi in Jharkhand when he was arrested in Bihar. Legal experts say that there is no law which says that in such cases a person has to be produced before the jurisdictional court when such an arrest is made.

These are matters of utmost importance and the jurisdiction of a court will not come into play. The Karnataka police would say that they found it fit to produce him before a court in Jharkhand as they did not want this issue to become public.

The court will in turn issue a transit warrant and then issue another directive to produce the accused before a court from the police team's home state.

Legal experts point out that this is an irregularity on part of the Bengaluru police, but not an illegality.

"This is a case of terrorism and there is national interest involved in it. In normal course they do inform the local police, but if they feel that the operation could go haywire then they are at liberty to maintain secrecy. Such an operation would not depend on the SOP, but on the circumstances. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that once a case has been registered, the police reserve the right to arrest an accused person for which topography cannot become the criterion," said an expert.

The other question is whether Bihar can take legal action against Karnataka. While it could raise this issue with the central government and lodge a complaint, the government is not at liberty to go to court as that right only is reserved only to the accused person.