Bombay High Court: In a criminal writ petition filed by the daughter (Smita Pansare) and daughter-in-law (Dr. Megha Pansare) of Govindrao P. Pansare (‘Govind Pansare’), the deceased leader of Communist Party of India, seeking the appointment of an independent Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to investigate the murder of the late politician and monitoring of the said investigation by this Court, a Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari* and Kamal Khata, JJ., held that since that the investigating agency had investigated the allegations of the family, continuous monitoring of the further investigation solely for the arrest of the two absconding accused persons by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not necessary.
Background
On 16-02-2015, Govind Pansare and his wife, Uma G. Pansare, were shot near their house by two unknown assailants. A First Information Report (‘FIR’) was lodged under Section read with Section of the (‘IPC’) and Section of the (‘Arms Act’). After Govind Pansare succumbed to his injuries on 20-02-2015, Section of was added to the crime. Initially, the police investigated the crime, but later, the investigation was transferred to SIT. Under the investigation conducted by SIT, 10 accused persons were arrested and two were reported as absconding.
Thereafter, family of Govind Pansare sought transfer of the investigation to the Anti-Terrorism Squad (‘ATS’), Maharashtra, contending that the SIT failed to trace out the absconding accused persons who were the actual shooters and there was no major headway in the investigation.
This Court, vide order dated 03-08-2022, noted that no major headway or breakthrough was made in the investigation in the past seven years. Noting this, the Court directed the Additional Director General of Police, ATS, to constitute a team of ATS Officers and to include some of the SIT Officers who had been investigating the case.
Accordingly, a team of ATS officers was constituted and the case was renumbered to be considered as a case under Sections , , read with Section of and Sections , , and of the .
Thereafter, the family of Govind Pansare sought continuance of the investigation’s monitoring by the Court in the present petition, contending that such monitoring was necessary for the arrest of the two absconding accused persons, as the investigation was properly conducted only after this Court began to monitor it. They also contended that it was a case of extraordinary nature and monitoring of investigation needed to be continued.
Analysis and Decision
Upon perusal of the record and the confidential report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, ATS, the Court stated that the ATS had investigated the allegations made by the family of Govind Pansare and except the arrest of said two absconding accused, nothing else remained to be investigated. The Court further stated that the investigating agency was making necessary efforts to arrest the said absconding accused persons by carrying out further investigation.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that only for the purpose of arrest of absconding accused, continuous monitoring of the further investigation by this Court under Article 226 was not necessary. The Court further stated that after the arrest of the absconding accused persons, the investigating agency could report it to the Trial Court as per the .
The Court also noted that the trial of the present case had already begun wherein, so far, 28 witnesses had been examined by the prosecution.
Regarding the principles concerning monitoring of investigation by the Court, the Court placed reliance on the cases of Vineet Narain v. Union of India , Sushila Devi v. State of Rajasthan , and Shahid Balwa v. Union of India , wherein the Supreme Court had laid down that once the charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process of court-monitoring investigation would come to an end, and the ordinary process of the law would take over.
Thus, the Court held that further monitoring of the investigation was not necessary and dismissed the writ petition. Further, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the hearing by conducting it daily.
[Smita Pansare v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1565 of 2024, decided on 02-01-2025]
*Judgment Authored by Justice A.S. Gadkari
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Senior Advocate Anand Grover, Amit Singh, Kabeer Pansare, Anasamah Sayed, and Tanuj Kushare for petitioners; Subhash Jha, Siddharth Jha, Apeksha Sharma, Sumeet Upadhyay and Ashish Saxena for applicant
For the respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Ashok Mundargi and Additional Public Prosecutor M.M. Deshmukh
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Constitution of India
Buy Penal Code, 1860
Section of the
Section of the
Section of the
Section of the
The post appeared first on .