Delhi Court Questions Police Delay In MCOCA Case, Describes Proceedings As “Merely Eyewash”

A Delhi court has sharply criticised the city police over what it described as an “absolutely perfunctory and mere eyewash” report concerning an organised-crime case, questioning why two accused allegedly continued to be involved in serious offences for years after the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) was invoked against them. Special Judge Gaurav Rao raised concerns over the prolonged delay in arresting the accused despite their alleged involvement in multiple criminal cases. The court observed that the matter reflected serious lapses in investigation and sent a copy of its October 5 order to the Delhi Police Commissioner. The judge said the circumstances called for a detailed inquiry and appropriate action against all officials and investigating officers found responsible for the lapses. The court’s observations came while examining the police’s handling of proceedings involving accused Mukesh alias Punit and Pardeep alias Guri.

The case originated from an FIR registered in September 2020, in which MCOCA provisions were invoked against Mukesh and Pardeep. The law is intended to deal with organised criminal activity and provides stringent provisions for cases involving continuing criminal activity by organised groups. While examining the record, the court focused on the criminal cases allegedly registered against the two accused after MCOCA was invoked. The judge questioned how individuals facing serious allegations could remain at large for extended periods despite their names appearing in subsequent FIRs. According to the court, the police report submitted in relation to the issue failed to adequately explain the prolonged delay and instead appeared to offer little meaningful justification for the investigative lapses. The court therefore directed that its order be brought to the attention of the Delhi Police Commissioner for further examination.

The court noted that Mukesh was already involved in around 20 FIRs when MCOCA was invoked against him in 2020. Among those cases were two relating to murder and another concerning an attempt to murder, according to the court record. Despite his existing criminal history and the invocation of the stringent law, Mukesh was allegedly named in eight additional FIRs between 2021 and 2024. These later cases included allegations of murder, attempt to murder, robbery and kidnapping. The court questioned why effective steps were apparently not taken to secure his arrest during this period. Mukesh was ultimately arrested on February 9, 2026, after ACP Rakesh Kumar took over the investigation. The investigation had been assigned to Kumar on September 25, 2025, meaning the arrest came months after the matter was transferred to him.

Also Read: IRCTC Hotel Case: Delhi Court Orders Charges Framed Against Lalu, Rabri, Tejashwi

The court specifically highlighted the absence of effective efforts by investigating officers before ACP Rakesh Kumar took charge. Referring to the sequence of events, the judge observed that, before Kumar’s involvement, none of the investigating officers appeared to have made efforts to arrest Mukesh. “Hence, before ACP Rakesh Kumar, none of the IOs made any efforts to arrest the said accused,” the court said. The observation formed a central part of the court’s criticism of the police investigation. The judge questioned how an accused who was allegedly facing a substantial number of criminal cases, including serious violent offences, could remain outside police custody for such a long period after MCOCA had been invoked. The court’s criticism suggested that the issue was not merely a delay in one investigative step but a broader failure to take timely action.

Pardeep alias Guri was also examined by the court in the same context. According to the order, Pardeep had been involved in numerous criminal cases and, as reflected in the chargesheet, allegedly committed several heinous offences during 2020 after MCOCA was invoked against him. The court further noted that he was named in two FIRs registered in 2024. Despite the subsequent allegations, Pardeep was not arrested until April 16, 2026. The court’s observations raised questions about the police’s efforts to trace and apprehend him during the intervening period. As with Mukesh, the record before the court showed a significant gap between the invocation of MCOCA and the eventual arrest, prompting scrutiny of the conduct and effectiveness of the investigating officers assigned to the case.

Special Judge Gaurav Rao’s October 5 order has now placed the conduct of the investigating officers under renewed scrutiny. By forwarding the order to the Delhi Police Commissioner, the court has called for the matter to be examined through a detailed inquiry and for appropriate action against officials found responsible for the lapses. The court’s remarks underline the importance of timely investigation and enforcement in organised-crime cases, particularly when stringent provisions such as MCOCA have been invoked. The allegations against the accused remain matters for the criminal proceedings, but the court’s concern focused specifically on the police response and the lengthy delays in making the arrests. The inquiry ordered in light of the court’s observations could determine why the accused allegedly remained at large despite being linked to multiple serious cases and whether disciplinary or other action is warranted against the officials concerned.

Also Read: Vivek Bhagat’s Additional DCP Charge Withheld Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations