The petition was filed by complainant Mandar Ghodke and Purnekar’s son Ram
The petition stated that till Oct 10, five persons were arrested but the SIT deliberately avoided arresting another suspect — Rajendra Shinde.
“Many visible attempts were made by SIT to safeguard Rajendra Shinde,” the petition said. The petition stated, “Looking at the biased view and approach of the present SIT,” the petitioners do not wish further investigation to be conducted by it. The petitioners’ advocate said SIT was ignoring crucial evidence they provided which showed the true conspirator with the arrested suspects. The judges said it is settled law that HC “cannot direct the manner in which the investigation has to go on… Besides, “at this stage, for the vacation court to do anything is not possible.”
The petition was filed by complainant Mandar Ghodke and Purnekar’s son Ram to transfer the investigation from the special investigation team (SIT), in connection with the FIR registered by Kapurbawdi police station, to an independent agency of the state and for HC to monitor the investigation. The petitioners’ advocates had continuously provided video proof of Shinde’s involvement.
Mumbai: Bombay High Court on Friday refused to grant urgent relief on a petition seeking transfer of investigation into the death of Shiv Sena (UBT) Manpada division chief Pradeep Purnekar who was shot dead on Sept 29 at his office in Manpada, Thane (W). The judges noted, from the letter seeking urgent listing of the matter, that the urgency cited was that 37 days out of 90 days stipulated for completion of investigation had already elapsed. The judges noted that on Sept 30, an FIR was lodged and the very same day SIT was constituted.
Special public prosecutor Rajiv Chavan said there has been sufficient progress in the investigation and documents/evidence provided by the petitioners are being duly considered. “At this stage, we are not persuaded to make any further observations in regard to the pending/ongoing investigations,” the judges said. However, the vacation bench of Justices Advait Sethna and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale granted the petitioners liberty to mention the matter on the day of regular court reopening. The petitioners had expressed apprehension that continuation of the investigation by SIT may defeat the very purpose of the proceedings.
They directed the matter to be placed before the regular court.