Mangaluru: Witness protection in a sensitive case from Dharmasthala Police Station (Crime No. 39/2025) is facing serious challenges, with law enforcement citing a lack of cooperation from the witness’s legal team and procedural breaches that may compromise identity security.

The case gained attention after the advocate representing the key witness issued press releases and communicated case-related details to media outlets, despite an earlier request for witness anonymity. In response to police queries, the advocate claimed that the disclosures were made at the request of the witness. However, officials argue that the nature and extent of shared information rendered identity protection ineffective.

As per Rule 7 of the relevant legal framework, police protection can only be extended upon confirmation of the witness’s willingness and location. On July 10, 2025, an official communication was sent to the counsel, outlining the required procedures. Despite this, the police say no information regarding the current whereabouts of the witness has been shared.

All communication between the police and the advocate has remained restricted to email, with no direct verification of the witness’s availability or willingness to cooperate.

In its internal report to the competent authority, the police have noted that without verifiable information, witness protection cannot be operationalised, and if the impasse continues, the witness may be declared untraceable for the next phase of investigation.