Further Monitoring Of Investigation In Govind Pansare Murder Case Not Necessary: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has stated that further monitoring of the investigation of the Govind Pansare murder case is not necessary.
The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the hearing and conduct it on a daily basis. Govind Pansare and his wife Uma Pansare, were shot by two unidentified assailants near their home in Kolhapur on February 16, 2015. While the couple was initially hospitalised, Govind Pansare succumbed to his injuries on February 20, 2015.
A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata observed, “After taking into consideration the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and applying it to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that, further monitoring of the investigation of the present crime is not necessary.”
Senior Advocate Anand Grover represented the Petitioners, while Special PP Ashok Mundargi appeared for the Respondent.
The daughter and daughter-in-law (Petitioner) of late Comrade Govindrao P. Pansare invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the State to appoint an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by the Additional Director General of Police and comprising of Officers of the ranks of Inspector General of Police and other Senior Officers of impeccable credentials to conduct an investigation into the conspiracy and gruesome murder of Govind Pansare, and to take all necessary consequential steps.
The State had argued that the accused was being represented by various Advocates and to accommodate them as per their convenience, on a particular date the trial Court was listing the Case pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge once a fortnight and due to the same, the trial of the present crime had not concluded.
The High Court noted the State’s argument that the trial of the present case could not be completed till date as the trial Court was listing the trial for hearing once in 15 days.
“The investigating agency is making necessary efforts to arrest the said absconding accused by carrying out further investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.. It is thus clear that, the only aspect remained to be investigated is, tracing of the said two absconding accused. According to us, only for the purpose of arrest of absconding accused, continuous monitoring of the further investigation by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not necessary. After the accused persons are arrested, the investigating agency can report it to the trial Court as per the provisions of Cr.P.C,” the Bench remarked.
The Court referred to the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Shahid Balwa v. Union of India (2014) wherein it was observed that “it has taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process of court-monitoring investigation comes to an end and it is for that Court to take cognizance of the same and deal with the matter.”
Further, the Court also relied on the decision in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) wherein the Apex Court held that the task of the monitoring by Court would end the moment a charge-sheet is filed in respect of a particular investigation and that the ordinary process of the law would then take over.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the fact stated by the learned Spl.P.P. and recorded in paragraph No.8.2 above, we direct the learned Judge of the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the Sessions Case No.3 of 2016 and to conduct it on daily basis.”
Cause Title: Smita Pansare & Anr. v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:14-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Anand Grover; Advocates Amit Singh, Kabeer Pansare, Anasamah Sayed and Tanuj Kushare
Respondent: Special PP Ashok Mundargi; Addl PP M.M. Deshmukh
