The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to inform it whether or not the investigation into the murder of activist Narendra Dabholkar was completed.
Dabholkar, the founder and leader of the anti-superstition Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, was killed in August 2013 by members of a radical group called Sanatan Sanstha.
The CBI filed a chargesheet against five people in the murder case after taking over the investigation in 2014. The trial in the case began in September 2021, after charges were filed against all five accused.
The CBI’s Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Anil Singh, informed the Court on Monday that the investigating officer had already submitted his report and that no further investigation was required.
However, the High Court was informed that the matter was pending for approval from the higher authority concerned.
The counsel informed the Court that, “In terms of the CBI, they conducted an investigation. Further investigation is also finished. Further investigation is not necessary. The officer has filed a report and it is pending before the competent authority. 15 out of 32 witnesses have already been examined in the trial. We leave it to the Court to decide.”
At the ASG’s request, the division Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and PD Naik granted the CBI three weeks to confirm whether its investigation is complete so that the Court could decide whether to continue monitoring the trial.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Dabholkar’s daughter, who requested a High Court-monitored probe into the investigation since the CBI probe, according to her, was unsatisfactory.
The accused in the case moved the High Court after the trial began in 2021, requesting that the High Court discontinue its monitoring of the matter.
Dabholkar’s daughter, through her lawyer, Advocate Abhay Nevagi, argued that the monitoring should continue because the agency had left loopholes in their investigation.
The accused, represented by advocate Subhash Jha, contended that the trial was already underway and that, under the law, the monitoring should have ended after the chargesheet was filed.
He argued that, “Three chargesheets have already been filed, and whatever the High Court says has repercussions on the trial.”
However, Advocate Abhay Nevagi responded that the investigation had not been carried out properly and that there were numerous loopholes that needed to be investigated. Other people were on the hit list, and everything in the case was interconnected, he added.
The Court, however, was unsatisfied by the contention.
“Threat perception differs from an investigation, which differs from a trial. A single witness cannot tell us everything. Let the investigation team tell us. “We are not looking into the case,” the Court stated.
