Case of death of woman ‘linked to minister’: Bombay HC says change in stance not appreciated, BJP leader to go ahead with PIL

When the matter was heard last on March 24, 2021, the HC had sought to find out from the state government why an FIR in the case had not been filed yet. The woman fell from the balcony of her house in February, 2021 and was declared dead at the hospital. A former cabinet minister in the state government, Sanjay Rathod’s name was linked to the woman.

Rathod, who was minister in the Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government, had resigned the same month due to the uproar over the woman’s death. Rathod is presently with the CM Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena and is a cabinet minister in the state government.

On Wednesday, after the plea came up for hearing in the pre-lunch session, the bench sought to know from the Police what steps were taken by it during the probe. It also queried about recordings/ audio clippings of alleged calls between her and the man purported to be former minister that took place before her death.

Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar submitted that the police had recovered a mobile phone of the deceased, which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) along with voice samples of the concerned person. It was found that the voice on the said calls was not identical to his actual voice. “We also went to enquire and found he was in Nagpur on the relevant day,” Venegaonkar said.

After the bench sought to know from the petitioner if she wanted to pursue with her PIL, advocate Pralhad Paranjape for Wagh sought from the court to dispose of the plea with liberty to move for another remedy. “I will take instructions on withdrawal,” the lawyer submitted.

“This is not the way. This is what happens. With changed circumstances your stance will also change. That is the game played through PILs. Courts have been made involved in this. We do not appreciate all this. Take instructions,” CJ Upadhyaya orally remarked.

In the post lunch session, Paranjape submitted that he had “no instructions to withdraw the PIL”, therefore sought a further date to argue the matter.

However, by then, the bench came to know that the matter was wrongly listed on the Board on Wednesday. “Accordingly, the matter is removed from the Board,” the bench noted in its order.