Shine Tom Chacko drug case: Police seek to set an example, but probe faces challenges

Kochi: In booking actor Shine Tom Chacko in yet another narcotics case after failing to prove similar charges against him in a 2015 case, the Kerala police’s desperation to either regain an upper hand or set an example is evident. An FIR was registered against Shine and his friend Ahammed Murshad by the Ernakulam Town North police on Saturday after he was questioned in connection with fleeing from a hotel room on April 16 during a police raid. During the questioning, which lasted for hours, Shine confessed to having used illegal addictive substances, though no such item was seized from the accused or the room where they were staying during the police raid. The two have been charged for drug use, conspiracy to use such substances and destruction of evidence. Police have slapped charges under sections 27(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act and 238 of BNS on the duo.

Shine arrived at the station along with his lawyer by 10 am, and he was apparently confident that there would be no action against him as there was no trace of substance use during the April 16 hotel drama. He was questioned by a police team comprising Ernakulam Central ACP C Jayakumar, South ACP Rajkumar and Narcotics ACP Abdul Salam. On the police query as to why he jumped out of the window of his room when the police knocked, he said that he was afraid that some of his rivals had sent goons to attack him. 

However, the police prodded him to admit that he had been using drugs for quite some time, leading to his arrest. He also told the police, according to sources, that he had sought treatment from a de-addiction centre in Koothattulam last year but discontinued it after 12 days. 

The events that unfolded at the police station gained extreme media attention for the involvement of a celebrity with a shady track record. Though Shine was at the early stage of his acting career when he was arrested in the cocaine case in 2015, in the following years, his career witnessed a meteoric rise. Even as his performance skill earned praise, his image as a drug user also kept growing, though there was no substantial evidence. The latest police action was hence interpreted as a bold move not only to take on an alleged serial celebrity offender but also to get into the alleged growing drug nexus in the Malayalam film industry. 

While the goal sounds noble, it is doubtful how much headway the investigators can make with the current case. With no material evidence to prove the police finding, the fate of the case will mostly depend on the result of the blood tests and chemical analysis of the accused’s hair and nail samples. Even police sources admitted that there is no guarantee that the results turn positive. 

Legal experts also pointed out that the case against Shine looks so weak that the FIR could even be quashed when it reaches the court of law. The fact that no contraband has been seized from the accused is cited as a major drawback. 

“The FIR looks like an eyewash to create an impression that the police have acted against the actor. Without contraband seizure, there is no scope of any progress in the case. It is also pointless to pin hopes on the chemical tests as they need not always be accurate, and it can easily be challenged in court,” Shajjid Kammadam, a lawyer well versed in NDPS Act, told Onmanorama. The lawyer said that Shine had presented the best possible explanation to the police by stating that he ran away from the hotel room to escape some threat. 

Police sources, however, presented another scenario. Officers involved in the investigation said that before Shine is questioned next time, they will be examining details of his financial transactions and call records. The aim is to establish if he had contacts and financial deals with history-sheeters. It will also be investigated if he was present at places where drug parties took place. 

Advocate Shajjid pointed out that all such measures could turn futile unless police found strong evidence of culpability against Shine. 

“Even if call records show he had contacts with known drug dealers, that will not be adequate to prove culpability. It is the same about financial transactions too,” the lawyer said.