MUMBAI, Oct. 21 -- The Mumbai police have cited legal constraints to explain why they have been unable to secure physical custody of gangster Anmol Bishnoi in the Baba Siddique murder case but a special MCOCA court's findings raise an uncomfortable question: Did investigators exhaust all legal avenues available to them, or stop at the one route they knew was blocked? Despite being directed to explore video-conferencing to secure the presence of Anmol, brother of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, police sought his physical production from Tihar Jail - a request rejected because a central government order restricted his removal. Anmol, also wanted for the firing outside actor Salman Khan's Bandra residence, has been named by investigators as the alleged mastermind in Siddique's murder. The special MCOCA court issued a show-cause notice to investigating officer ACP Subhash Dhudhgaonkar, saying his conduct prima facie reflected "deliberate disregard" of its directions. On Wednesday, it is expected to hear arguments on a plea by Siddique's widow, Shehzeen Siddique, seeking further action against the police officer for allegedly misleading the court. The court's August 5 order noted that despite its July 10 directions to secure Anmol's presence, the officer had merely sought his physical production before a Delhi court, which was turned down due to the restriction on his removal from Tihar Jail. The Mumbai court said the compliance report was "conspicuously silent" on attempts to secure Anmol through video-conferencing or any other legally permissible mode. Dhudhgaonkar had argued that proper investigation was impossible without physical custody. Rejecting this explanation as "wholly unsatisfactory", the court said the officer had "merely repeated the exercise, which was bound to fail in view of the existing restraint order". The judge further observed, "In the present case, prima facie, the conduct of the Investigating Officer reflects deliberate disregard of the directions contained in the order dated July 10, 2026." In his August 12 reply, Dhudhgaonkar denied deliberate disobedience, arguing physical custody was essential to investigate the alleged conspiracy, identify participants, trace financiers and weapons, and verify digital communications. Advocate Trivankumar Karnani, representing Shehzeen said, "During arguments, we will explain how the Mumbai police ought to have secured Anmol's custody through video-conferencing, sought permission from the competent court to interrogate him in jail, and produced him before the special MCOCA court via video-conferencing, as directed in its July 10 order, to effectively secure his custody and proceed with the trial."...