The Supreme Court in the case Mukta Dabholkar and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., observed and has dismissed the petition moved challenging the discontinuation of the court-monitored probe into the 2013 murder of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in the case observed and has left it open for petitioner-Mukta Dabholkar, the daughter of Narendra Dabholkar to provide any material which relates to the criminal cases in question to the CBI, which the CBI shall take into consideration and proceed in accordance with law.
The court in its order stated that this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
The court stated that this court leave it open for the petitioner to provide any such material which may come handy to the petitioner and may be related to the criminal cases in question and same be provided to CBI, which shall take into consideration and proceed in accordance with law.
The court observed that the Bombay High Court in its order declined to continue monitoring of the probe, was reasonable and monitoring could not be at the pleasure of a party.
The bench orally remarked that the Courts are not meant for monitoring and everything.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioner urged the court that the present case was a serious one requiring the larger conspiracy to be investigated, because otherwise you are only left with the persons who are shooting at the end of the day, not the mastermind behind the whole thing.
Further, the court stated that if the petitioner knew who was the mastermind and the answer was given in the negative.
It was also contended that the CBI shall investigate the same. The court stated that the murder probe had been transferred by the High Court of Bombay in 2014 from Pune police to CBI, following a petition by activist Ketan Tirodkar and later by Dabholkar’s daughter Mukta Dabholkar. Since then, the progress of the case was being monitored by the High Court.
The court stated that the High Court in April last year refused to continue monitoring the probe, observing that monitoring could not be perpetual. Thus, while some monitoring is fine, law is clear that when a charge sheet is filed, the rights of the accused are to be considered.
The counsel, Mukta Dabholkar had moved the Supreme Court wherein it relied on the CBI’s statement that the investigation in the case was continuing.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Anand Grover on previous hearing had drawn the Supreme Court’s attention to CBI’s statement that investigation was in progress in respect of two absconding accused and others involved in the large spread conspiracy.
It was also highlighted before the court that CBI headquarters had not taken any decision on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, and 4 weeks’ time had been requested by CBI from the High Court to reach a final conclusion.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration after the period of 4 weeks.
