Pulling up CBI for divulging to the media probe details in the Narendra Dabholkar murder case, the Bombay High Court today warned the agency that it will not hesitate to direct disciplinary action against officers doing so and send them to jail. "Your (CBI) progress report is nothing but news reports. All this is already there in the public domain. How does the media come to know about the identity of witnesses in the case and where the agency is going to conduct searches. Everything is revealed to the media," the court said. The stinging remarks against the premier probe agency came from a bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi while hearing a batch of petitions filed by the families of rationalist Dabholkar and slain communist leader and activist Govind Pansare seeking HC monitoring of both the investigations. [related-post] Watch Video: What's making news "You will be ruining the entire probe if you conduct yourself in this fashion. Absconding accused in the case must be getting details pertaining to the probe from the media. Hats off to CBI," the bench observed. "All this may seem trivial now, but they are very important lacunae when the trial is conducted. Tomorrow who is going to protect the witnesses and family members who are speaking freely to media these days. Some restraint and patience are required by the family members. This cheap publicity for everything is disgusting and it affects fair investigation and trial," it said. The court warned that it will not hesitate to direct disciplinary action against the officer(s) concerned revealing investigation details and will put him in jail. The bench sought to know from the Maharashtra government if it had decided to seek a CBI probe in the Pansare case as claimed by the lawyer of the family of the slain activist, even as the prosecutor said he had no such instruction. It also came down heavily on CID and CBI, probing the Pansare and Dabholkar cases respectively, for slow progress in the investigation. The Pansare family had approached the state government seeking a CBI probe in the matter and the government had given its consent, lawyer Abhay Nevgi, representing the family of the slain leader, told HC. However, Public Prosecutor Sandeep Shinde submitted that he does not have any instruction from the government on the issue. The court then asked Shinde to find out if the government has decided to seek a CBI probe in the case, and if it has done so, then tell the court the reasons for it. While Dabholkar was killed in August 2013, Pansare was shot dead on February 16, 2015 in Kolhapur. CBI and CID have been submitting periodical progress reports to HC. CBI had earlier said it was probing the role of right-wing organisation Sanatan Sanstha in the Dabholkar case. "We are not impressed by these reports. The agencies ought to be careful and sensitive as murder case probes need to be initiated and concluded bearing in mind that it is a crime against the society," the court said. "Two eminent individuals have lost their lives on account of their work and ideology, hence at stake here is a larger interest of freedom of speech, expression and views," it observed. The bench, while adjourning the matter for six weeks, asked CBI to make all endeavour to obtain reports immediately from forensic science laboratory in Scotland where the agency has sent bullets and empty cartridges recovered from the body of another slain rationalist M M Kalburgi. "Expedite the proceedings and try obtaining the reports immediately," it said. The court also noted that both the agencies for a month have been dragging their feet in their probe which, it said, was very "juvenile and childish". Public Prosecutor Shinde informed the court that CID has sought custody of the person arrested by CBI in the Dabholkar case. To this, the court said, "Didn't you know about this person before and the organisation with which he is affiliated. It is very shameful that officers instead of investigation ask the family members who they suspect. This needs to stop." On the next date of hearing, both the agencies will have to submit further progress reports.
