- Case
- DR VIRENDRASINGH S TAWADE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Arms Act, Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitution of India.
Facts: The petitioners, the daughter and daughter-in-law of the deceased Comrade Govindrao P. Pansare, filed a criminal writ petition seeking the appointment of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate his murder. Mr. Pansare and his wife were shot at in 2015, leading to his death. Initially, the Rajarampuri Police Station investigated the case, which was later transferred to a SIT. The SIT arrested 10 accused, but two remained absconding. Dissatisfied with the progress, the petitioners sought a transfer of the investigation to the ATS (Anti-Terrorism Squad). The High Court previously directed the ATS to form a team, including some officers from the SIT. The petitioners argued that monitoring by the Court was necessary for the arrest of the absconding accused and to uncover the masterminds behind the crime, linking it to other similar murders.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the Bombay High Court under its criminal appellate jurisdiction as a criminal writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the State to appoint an independent SIT and for continued monitoring of the investigation. Several interim applications were also filed in connection with the main petition.
Issue: Whether the High Court should continue to monitor the investigation of the Govind Pansare murder case, particularly after the investigation has been transferred to the ATS, a charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial has commenced, and whether a new SIT needs to be constituted.
Holding: The High Court held that further monitoring of the investigation by the Court was not necessary. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the Sessions Case and conduct it on a daily basis. The writ petition and related interim applications were disposed of.
Reasoning: The Court relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, particularly Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (1998) 1 SCC 226, Sushila Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 269, and Shahid Balwa Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 687, which established that court monitoring of an investigation should cease once a charge-sheet is filed and the trial has commenced. The Court noted that the ATS had thoroughly investigated the crime, and the trial had already begun with 28 witnesses examined. The Court acknowledged that the investigating agency was making necessary efforts to arrest the two absconding accused, but continuous monitoring by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was no longer required. The Court stated, "since the investigation has already been completed, charge-sheet has been filed, trial has already commenced, it is not necessary for this Court to continue with the monitoring of the case in question."
