The Bombay High Court Thursday told the CBI and the Maharashtra CID not to completely rely on the revelations made in the Gauri Lankesh case and conduct an independent probe into the killings of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar and Left leader Govind Pansare.
A bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and M S Karnik asked both the probe agencies to make a "sincere effort" towards tracing the absconding accused in Pansare and Dabholkar cases.
The directions came after the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the state CID submitted its progress report before the bench.
The bench noted that the SIT had said, among other things, that it was questioning those arrested by the authorities in Karnataka in the murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh, to help trace the absconding accused in Pansare case.
The bench noted that on the previous hearings too, both the CBI and the SIT had submitted that they were questioning the accused in Lankesh case to get information on the killings of Dabholkar and Pansare respectively.
"You are questioning the accused in another case in Karnataka...but the report (SIT's progress report) doesn't reveal what the actual measures you are taking to arrest the absconding accused," the bench said.
"You cannot rely completely on the revelations made by the accused in another case. How long will this go on? You have to conduct an independent probe, gather some independent material, especially since these crimes in Maharashtra (killings of Pansare and Dabholkar) took place before the crime in Karnataka," the bench said.
The CBI, however, argued through its counsel Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, that its officers were doing their best to trace the absconding accused.
"It is not as if our officers are not doing anything. They are taking all possible steps and only very capable officers have been chosen to take part in these two operations (CBI's and the CID's)," Singh submitted.
The bench also said that it seemed as if the probe machinery in Karnataka was making much headway, but the agencies in Maharashtra had failed to do so, especially due to bureaucratic hassles and lack of coordination with each other.
"The unfortunate part is that in one state the machinery gets full assistance, while in our state, either the machinery is not working or not getting cooperation," the bench said.
ASG Singh, however, submitted that the probe authorities in Maharashtra worked "better than anyone else."
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
