Solving Crime: How a woman’s two-second phone call to save husband’s number helped cops crack one of Bengaluru’s biggest gold heists

As he approached 12th Main Road in Indiranagar, a motorbike bearing the registration number KA02 ED15 hit John’s scooter from behind, causing him to fall on the road and sustain minor injuries. Occupants of a Maruti Omni car, which was passing by, decided to take him to a hospital in their vehicle.

Unbeknownst to John, the men who caused the accident and those who took him in the Omni van were part of the same gang. They snatched his mobile phone and used chloroform to render him unconscious. What they did not anticipate, however, was that the keys to the office were not on his person.

Getting the keys from the police station

The gang immediately began to suspect that the keys were in the scooter. One of the gang members returned to the accident spot only to find out that John’s scooter was taken to Jeevan Bhima Nagar traffic police station. Pretending to be his friends, two men went to the police station. Somehow convincing the police that the accident was minor and John was fine at the hospital, they took the scooter and managed to get hold of the keys.

Wasting no time, the gang went to the Muthoot office and stole 40 kg of gold ornaments, valued at Rs 5.68 crore at the time (roughly Rs 28 crore at present).

A police officer recalled that the incident came to light only after 18 hours, adding that time is crucial in such cases. “Dumped in an isolated place, John gained consciousness the next morning and managed to reach a hospital for treatment. His first thought was that he was only robbed of Rs 20,000 (which was in his pocket). Before long, he managed to locate his scooter near Jeevan Bhima Nagar traffic police station. It was on checking the scooter that John realised that the office keys were also missing. He immediately informed the finance firm’s executives and rushed to the branch only to find that all the gold in the strong room was cleaned out. They approached the Jeevan Bhima Nagar police,” the officer said.

“Our first suspect was the victim (Isaaq John). We had to question him and check his credentials and details for almost a day and kept him under watch. By then, the media came to know about the case and started to flash news about the heist. As the case was serious in nature, at least seven to eight teams were formed,” the officer added.

T Rangappa, S Badrinath, M K Thammaiah, Hanumatharayappa, Mohammed Rafiq and Srinivas – then police inspectors – headed the teams. “The case started with zero leads. There were no CCTV cameras on the road or in firms like how it is today. The Central Crime Branch (CCB) was parallely investigating and there was a competition between the East Division police and the CCB,” a police officer said.

A call that proved costly for the gang

While collecting information from the vicinity of the finance firm, the police came to know that a footwear shop opened opposite the Muthoot office a month ago but was shut down in the days after the heist.

A police team contacted the owner of the building and got the number of the person who rented the space. “We took the mobile number that he had given to the owner and found that the number had only communicated with four to five other numbers frequently within that month. It also turned out that the SIM card was bought using a fake identity,” said a police officer.

Next, investigators checked the Call Details Records (CDR) of those numbers, suspecting that they were all part of a gang which may have been involved in the robbery. However, even those four to five numbers had only communicated between each other. “Some random calls were made to divert police attention, but we tracked every person to whom a call was made. The investigation was so intense that each and every incoming and outgoing call made after the SIM cards were activated were checked as the connections were just 30 days old.

That’s when investigators noticed a call that lasted just two seconds, made to the number of a woman. An officer said, “We found out that the woman was the wife of Jayakumar, a resident of Mahadevapura in Bengaluru. He was arrested in a theft case before and was out on bail. We went to Jayakumar’s house and on questioning, his wife said that she had called from her husband’s new mobile number to her own number to save it.” This call happened 15 days before the crime.

Investigators said that one day, on noticing that her husband – who was sleeping – had another phone with him, Jayakumar’s wife picked up the second phone and called her number. She answered the call and hung up within two seconds. Her intention was to save the number so she could reach him when his usual number was unavailable. She never asked him about the new phone or its number. However, Jayakumar disposed of the mobile phone after the crime.

“By then, it was clear that Jayakumar was part of the gang. Upon interrogation, he revealed that they had built a team and planned the heist for at least three months,” an officer said.

Based on the information he shared, the police arrested Nirmal Raj Kumar, 35, Manoj Kumar, 29, Lawrence D Selva, 24, and Jagannathan, 28, all residents of Bengaluru, and Tamil Nadu residents Bhaskaran, 26, Setu, 30, J Madivanna, 33, and Das Prakash, 23. A police officer said Nirmal Raj and Bhaskaran met in prison and hatched a plot to commit a big heist so they could settle down. Others part of the gang were their friends.

After the heist, the accused partially sold the gold ornaments and went holidaying in Shimla, Delhi, Manali and Mumbai. “We made Jayakumar call one of them stating that he would join them to spend some time as the heist was successful. The accused fell prey to it and when they came to meet Jayakumar in Shimla, we caught all of them,” the officer said.

On June 12, 2009, then city police commissioner Shankar Mahadeva Bidari held a press meet stating that they had recovered 34.60 kg of gold. “Initially we were unable to recover all the gold ornaments. But after the arrest, when they went to prison, we found out that some gold ornaments were being sold or pledged. It was hidden in a farmhouse and then police inspector Hanumatharayappa played a crucial role in recovering another 6 kg of gold,” a police officer said.

Meanwhile, one investigator was also caught for trying to make a quick buck from the accused.

Janardhan, then police inspector of Mico Layout who was part of the investigation team, had collected a bribe of Rs 3.45 lakh from accused Jagannathan after promising to help him during the trial. When the matter came to light in 2010, Janardhan was suspended.

Planning the complex operation

According to the investigators, the gang had recced the finance firm and tracked its operations, including who carries the keys. They had also followed John, besides purchasing new mobile phones and SIM cards – using fake documents – for the same purpose. Significantly, they had also rented commercial space opposite the Muthoot finance firm, ostensibly to set up a footwear shop.

Without the crucial phone call establishing Jayakumar’s connection to the crime, the police would have struggled to crack the case, an official said.

A senior police officer said security lapses on the part of the firm also aided the gang when it came to executing the heist. “The sirens were not active, besides, the keys of both the strong room and the bank door will not be with the same person in banking or financial institutions,” the officer added.

Conviction

After gathering evidence and information, the Jeevan Bhima Nagar police filed a chargesheet against the accused under 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 364 (a) (kidnapping for ransom), 395 (dacoity), 397 (crime of robbery or dacoity with the intent to cause grievous hurt or death) of the Indian Penal Code.

On January 6, 2023, the 56th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to 10 years of imprisonment each. Judge T Govindaiah said in the order, “During the identification parade so many changes were made in the line of accused. But the witnesses clearly identified them. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused by producing considered and cogent material evidence. Under such circumstances there is no doubt regarding the act of the accused. On careful perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same clearly reveals that the accused have committed dacoity and robbery for wrongful gain and their personal use. The accused being young people, they have no fear about law and police.”