Wrong ‘culprit’? Saif ‘attacker’ fingerprints don’t match any of many at crime scene

With all 10 of Shariful Islam Shehzad's fingerprints having been checked and none of them matching the 19 prints from the crime scene, it seems almost certain that he is not the person who attacked Saif Ali Khan, reports local newspaper Mid-Day. This is a major blow to the credibility of the initial arrest and points to the possibility of a serious mistake having been made.

Shehzad, reportedly a Bangladeshi national, has been arrested for allegedly attacking Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan at his residence on 16 January. The arrest has become a political plank to cry out about 'Bangladeshi infiltrators' yet again. But was it all a ploy — or an honest mistake?

At this stage, the authorities will need to not only identify the real perpetrator but also explain how such a significant error occurred in their investigation. (Or is this only coming to light now for the public? Was it already known to the police and that is why the investigating officer was changed at the last minute, perhaps?)

In addition, if there is no other strong evidence linking Shehzad to the crime, his continued detention will face legal challenges and the police may come under scrutiny for mishandling the case. An international incident is not impossible, given this is a Bangladeshi national — and it certainly does not come at a great time for already strained Indo-Bangladesh relations.

Security camera footage has already been disputed by experts and lay netizens alike. If their doubts hold up, they could further undermine the police's credibility further, especially as they haven't addressed these concerns publicly yet.

The next logical step for the police would be to re-examine any other evidence collected from the crime scene, including other forensic details such as DNA. It’s also crucial they explore whether there are other suspects or connections that could have been overlooked earlier.

The lack of communication and clarity from the police teams raises even more concerns about the investigation's handling. It seems that the investigation was fragmented, with different teams working in isolation rather than in coordination. The fact that the Zone 6 team, led by DCP Navnath Dhavale, had limited information and was operating with only partial details about the case could explain some initial errors.

But why not say so? Why let the media take hold of the detainee's identity and run with it?

Indeed, it would seem the media statements quickly issued by DCP Dixit Gedam, confirming Shehzad’s involvement as soon as he was handed over to Bandra Police, further complicated things. The speed at which the police made public claims about the suspect could be read as an attempt to reassure the public and demonstrate progress, but now they seem foolhardy at best — and dangerously unprofessional at worst.

The growing public scrutiny is understandable, especially with the discrepancies in both the arrest process and the evidence. The Mumbai Police now have a difficult task ahead: not only do they need to clarify what went wrong in the investigation, but they also need to address the larger issue of how coordination and communication between different teams were handled, or mishandled, in this case.