Gangster Ejaz Lakdawala acquitted in 2011 extortion, attempt to murder case

A Thane Sessions Court has acquitted alleged gangster Ejaz Yusuf Lakdawala in a 2011 extortion and attempted murder case, citing lack of evidence and unreliable witness testimonies.

Sessions Judge VL Bhosale, delivering the verdict, observed that none of the prosecution witnesses supported claims that Lakdawala was in possession of a pistol or had attempted to murder the complainant. Notably, except for one individual, none of the witnesses identified Lakdawala in court.

According to the prosecution, on April 19, 2011, at around 5:15 p.m., two unidentified men stormed into the Anandnagar office of builder Anup Jalan, owner of Regency Tower, and demanded Rs 5 lakh in extortion. When Jalan refused, one of the accused allegedly pulled out a pistol, pointed it at him, and attempted to fire. However, the weapon malfunctioned. The accused slammed the pistol repeatedly in frustration, causing four bullets to fall out. He then struck Jalan on the head with the weapon’s butt and vandalised the office by smashing its glass faade, shouting, “Ejaz Lakdawala aya tha” (“Ejaz Lakdawala had come”).

The assailant reportedly left behind a chit bearing Lakdawala’s name and a mobile number before fleeing. The case was registered by a peon from the builder’s office, but Lakdawala was arrested only in 2021.

A key panch witness, who police claimed was present during the seizure of the chit and bullets, told the court that the police recovered no items in his presence. Additionally, a sales executive who witnessed the incident failed to identify Lakdawala in court and admitted during cross-examination that he had testified “to make the police happy.” Another employee gave a similar account but also did not identify the accused.

Crucially, the court noted investigative lapses. Policeman Kishor Salve, who conducted the initial investigation, admitted under cross-examination that he had not verified who wrote the accused’s name and number on the chit or investigated the origin of the information.

“The most substantial point of the case, the chit, was not investigated,” the court remarked.

The only police officer who supported the prosecution was the investigating officer who had taken Lakdawala into custody, filed the charge sheet, and recorded a supplementary statement from the complainant.

Due to the lack of concrete evidence and significant procedural lapses, the court ruled in favor of acquittal.

- Ends