Dabholkar murder: CBI gets HC rap, says has identified two suspects

CBI’s advocate Rebecca Gonsalves submitted the two names to a division bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Rajesh Ketkar. “They are all members of the same organisation,” she said.

The HC was hearing petitions by the kin of slain rationalist Narendra Dabholkar and slain Communist leader Govind Pansare, who had expressed unhappiness with the probe being conducted by CBI in the Dabholkar case and by a special investigation team of the state police in Pansare’s case. They had urged the HC to monitor the two probes.

Dabholkar was shot dead on August 20, 2013, in Pune while Pansare was shot at on February 16 in Kolhapur and died on February 20, 2015.

“The SIT is active but CBI seems to be lagging behind. While CBI has better access to technology, they don’t have manpower,” said the court.

Both CBI and SIT have been asked to submit a detailed report on the investigations carried out by them in the next four weeks. They have also been asked to look into the suggestions submitted by the petitioners’ lawyer Abhay Nevagi pertaining to use of technology for investigation by FBI and Scotland Yard.

The matter will be heard next on November 30.

On October 7, the HC had asked the CBI and the SIT to inform it about steps being taken to nab the 2009 Goa blasts accused Rudra Patil, who is also a suspect in Pansare’s killing. The court was informed that Patil was a friend of Sameer Gaikwad of right-wing outfit Sanatan Sanstha, who was arrested recently for Pansare’s killing.

“There is no progress at all. No efforts have been made to nab Rudra Patil. Prima facie, there is a nexus in all these cases,” said the court.

Replying to the court’s question about Patil’s involvement, Gonsalves said she had assumed that the last directions were only for investigation carried out by SIT, which had not revealed Patil’s involvement in Pansare’s killing.
The judges asked how the agency had reached such conclusion when Nevagi had pointed out that Sarang Akolkar, wanted in the Goa blasts case, was a suspect in the Dabholkar case.
“Is this not sufficient? How can you say he has no connection?” Justice More asked while seeking to know if their conclusion on Patil not being involved was based on some material.

On their part, the petitioners also submitted names of two more suspects.

Gonsalves said that CBI had made some progress in terms of investigations and identified two mobile numbers of persons who were present at the scene of the crime. She also said the Akolkar’s photo had been shown to the two eye-witnesses who failed to identify him.

Nevagi asked why the phone numbers had not been used to reach the persons. “There is technology available nowadays by which we can get to the person in 24 hours,” he said.

Nevagi also questioned the way the investigations were being carried out. “The officer heading the investigations, who is of the rank of deputy superintendent of police, is coordinating from Navi Mumbai. Six officers who have been deputed by the Maharashtra government are sitting in Pune,” Nevagi said.

The court questioned why the officer was not in Pune and whether the team comprised of any officers from Pune, to which Gonsalves said there were none. “They are, however, devoting sufficient time,” she said while adding that they were only given 20 days to submit a report from the last court orders.

“Twenty days is not a short time,” the court said and asked if there was proper coordination between CBI and SIT.
In Pansare’s case, Nevagi said, no weapon or motorcycle had been recovered by the SIT. He expressed the apprehension that if chargesheet was not filed within 90 days, Gaikwad would be released on bail.

The prosecutor, appearing for the government, replied that the SIT was going to file a chargesheet and had been using advanced techniques for the probe.

The court, appreciating SIT’s progress in comparison to CBI, also directed it to file a status report.