Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 3653 OF 2025
JUDGMENT
1. Hardik Patil Age: 21 years, Occupation: Education R/at: House No. 1924, Durgadevipada, Near Dharmaji Kiara Stores, Old Ambernath Village, Taluka- Ambernath, District- Thane. … Petitioner V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra (Through Police Station, Shivajinagar, Ambernath, Thane
2. Suraj Vilas Patil Age: 27 Years, Occupation: Unknown, R/o. Old Ambernath, Durgapada, Near Datta Mandir, Ambernath East.
3. Harsh Sunil Patil Age: 22 Years, Occupation: Unknown, R/o. Old Ambernath, Durgapada, Near Datta Mandir, Ambernath East. … Respondents Mr. Yash Dewal for Petitioner. Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 -State. CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE: 22nd DECEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J]:-
1) By the present Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a direction to transfer the investigation of F.I.R. NO. 0872/2024, dated 23rd October 2024, registered with the Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath, Dist. Thane, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In the alternative, the Petitioner seeks direction that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) be constituted to investigate the said C.R. No. 0872 of 2024.
2) Heard Mr. Yash Deval for the Petitioner, Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P for Respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.
3) Petitioner, the informant in the FIR No. 0872 of 2024, dated 23rd October 2024, registered with the Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath, Thane, is the son of the deceased Mr. Sanjay Shriram Patil. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, the crime pertaining to the murder of his father i.e Mr. Sanjay Shriram Patil has not been investigated properly and in the right perspective. That, all the persons involved in the murder and conspiracy to commit the murder of his father have not been made accused in the said crime. That, the important and relevant facts, which point out to the guilt and involvement of certain named individuals in the murder of the deceased namely Mr. Sanjay Shriram Patil, have not even been considered and investigated into and the role of the said persons has not been examined by the investigating Agency. That, important and crucial evidence, though pointed out by the Petitioner and his family members has not been considered and or collected.
4) Facts germane to the present matter can be summarized as under:
4.1) The FIR is lodged by the Petitioner, the son of the deceased. In the FIR, it is stated by the Petitioner that, about 19 years ago Mr. Sanjay Shriram Patil, the Petitioner’s father purchased 5 acres land in the MIDC at Ambernath, from one Shantaram Patil. That, the said Shantaram Patil subsequently sold the said land to third person due to which there were disputes between the father of the Petitioner and Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Suraj Vilas Patil and Harsh Sunil Patil. On 22nd October 2024, at about 07.00 pm, when the Petitioner and his sister were on the way to their residence, Harsh Sunil Patil crossed them on a scooter at Kailas colony area and was looking at the Petitioner in anger. That, on reaching home, the Petitioner and his sister noticed that the Petitioner’s father (deceased) was at home and was talking to somebody on the phone. At about 07.30 pm, Petitioner’s father told them that he is going to meet Gholap Saheb and went for the said meeting in his car No. MH-05.FB-1041.
4.2) That, at around 08.00 pm, the Petitioner had returned home after making certain inquiries from the Align Fitness Gym. At that time, the Petitioner’s father had not yet returned home. That, at about 10.30 pm, the Petitioner’s friend Ganesh Bhopi called the Petitioner on the mobile and told him that the Petitioner’s father has been assaulted near May Flower Garden Building, on the footpath on the road leading to Shiv Mandir, Ambernath, East, and had been taken to Chhaya Hospital, Ambernath West for treatment. On getting said information, the Petitioner after informing his mother and sister went to Chhaya Hospital, OPD ward and on reaching the said hospital saw that his father had sustained injuries all over his body and the same were bleeding. The Petitioner was informed by the doctors about the death of his father. On this information, the Petitioner lodged the FIR on 23rd October
2024. That, in the FIR, the Petitioner has stated that, due to the disputes in respect of the said land Suraj Vilas Patil and Harsh Sunil Patil assaulted his father with some sharp weapons on his stomach, chest, back and on the left side under his ribs. That, the Petitioner’s father succumbed to the injuries.
4.3) The Post-mortem Report bearing No. 501 of 2024 dated 23rd October 2024 reveals 15 incised injuries of the following description; i) Incised stab wound over right side anterior axillary fold measuring approx. 4 X 2 X 6 cm deep cavity. ii) Incised wound over anterior wall of chest on sternal region measuring approx. 7 X 2 X 2 cm deep. iii) Incised stab wound over right-side in mid clavicular line lower thorax level measuring 4 X 1 X 10 cm deep. iv) Incised wound over left anterior part of chest in mid clavicular line measuring 4 X 1 X 6 cm deep. v) Incised stab wound over left hypochondriac region measuring 5 X
5 X 20 cm cavity deep within omentum and intestine. Part pulled out an abdominal wall. vi) Incised stab wound over right hypochondriac region in mid axillary line as describing below a) 5 X 2 X 20 cm cavity deep b) 8 X 2 X 20 cm cavity deep c) 4 X 1 X 20 cm cavity deep d) 3 X 1 X 20 cm cavity deep vii) Incised wound over right mid axillary region measuring 3 X 2 X 1 cm deep. viii) Incised wound over lateral aspect of right thigh measuring 9 X 2 X 2 cm deep. ix) Incised stab wound over right side perineal region (Anorectal area) measuring 4 X 1 X 20 cm cavity deep. x) Incised stab wound over bade of trunk (left Lumbar region) measuring 4 X 2 X 18 cm cavity deep xi) Incised stab wound over back of trunk (Right lumbar region) measuring 3 X 1 X 6 cm deep. xii) Incised stab wound over back of Abdomen left side in scapular line measuring 3 X 1 X 10 cm deep cavity. xiii) Incised stab wound over back of Abdomen right side in scapular line 3 X 1 X 6 cm cavity deep. xiv) Incised stab wound on dorsum of chest right side near of vertebral region measuring 3 X 1 X 4 cm deep. xv) Incised stab wound over dorsum of chest on right side measuring a) 3 X 1 X 4 cm deep b) 3 X 1 X 2 cm deep c) 3 X 1 X 3 cm deep d) 3 X 1 X 4 cm deep. The opinion as to the probable cause of death is given as “hemorrhage shock due to multiple stab injuries.” 4.4) The mother of the Petitioner Smt. Vidya Sanjay Patil, by her letter dated 12th November 2024 addressed to the Senior Police Inspector, Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ambernath, Dist. Thane requested for legal action against the accused and protection for her family and self. In the said letter, she reiterated the reason and motive for the murder of her husband Sanjay Shriram Patil. That, the motive for the murder was the land dispute which is subject matter of the Special Civil Suit No.9 of 2020. That, the respondents in the said suit are the family members of the accused. That, the said family members along with some other persons in conspiracy and with the common intention have committed the murder of her husband Sanjay Shriram Patil. In the said letter, the Petitioner’s mother expressed her apprehension that, there was a threat to her life and to the life of her children as they are the only legal heirs and inheritors of the said property/land in respect of which the civil suit was filed. That, their name would be entered as legal heirs in the said civil suit therefore there is a threat to their lives. She has stated that, though she has given names of the suspected accused persons no steps have been taken by the investigating Agency and the said suspects are roaming around freely. That, the murder of her husband has been committed by more than two persons and only two persons have been arraigned as accused. A similar complaint of and in connection with the improper investigation has been made by the Petitioner on 13th November 2024.
4.5) The Petitioner’s mother Vidya Sanjay Patil has also addressed letter dated 14th November 2024 to the Senior Police Inspector, Shivaji Nagar, Thane and followed up of the matter. That, in the said letter she has specifically stated that, despite the fact that the names of the suspected accused have been given, no inquiry or investigation whatsoever has been carried out and the said identified suspects are roaming around freely in the said area. In her reminder letter dated 3rd December 2024, addressed to the Police Commissioner, Thane, the Petitioner’s mother has stated that, the murder of her husband was pre-planned and a well hatched conspiracy. That, in order to mislead the investigating Agency, the accused had removed the trousers/pants of the deceased. She has reiterated her stand that, the murder has taken place on account of the land disputes. That, no proper and complete investigation or enquiry with her has been done in respect of the said incident. That, either there is no investigation or the same has been conducted at very slow pace to benefit the accused. That, when she specifically questioned the police as regards the recording of her statement, the police informed her that they were going to visit the complainant and her family for enquiry after rituals and ceremonies were over. That, the investigating Agency gave all sorts of excuses including that of elections for the delayed investigation. That, her independent inquiries, revealed that the Police Authorities had not collected the CCTV footage from the scene of the offence and from the areas in around of the scene of the offence. That, despite her follow up and request to the Investigating Agency to collect the CCTV footage no steps in that regard have been taken. In fact the investigating Agency mislead the Petitioner and his family by informing them that the CCTV footage is already taken, when in fact no CCTV footage was collected by the investigating Agency. That, the entire investigation is carried out by neglecting basic requirements of proper and effective investigation.
4.6) That, the conduct of the investigating Agency is totally negligent. The Petitioner’s mother in her letter has specifically averred that on 14th November 2024 when she met to the Joint Commissioner of Police Mr. Dnyaneshwar Chavan she was assured that the investigation would be carried out. That on 15th November 2024 she met the D.C.P Mr. Sachin Gore. That, the investigating Agency has only sought time and not taken any steps. That, on the date of the incident D.C.P Mr. Sachin Gore had given incorrect information in respect of the incident to the media. That, as alleged by the Agency, it was not possible that her husband would have gone to the said spot of incident for urination. She reiterated and stated that though the names of the suspected accused have been informed, no steps have been taken to investigate the matter in that behalf and the suspects were roaming around freely in the area. That, two wheeler and four wheeler vehicles without number plates are being used by certain people to follow her and her family. A similar complaint has been given on 20th December 2024.
4.7) On 2nd January 2024, the Petitioner’s mother received a response to her RTI queries in respect of the status of the investigation pertaining to the murder of her husband, wherein she was informed that the investigation is going on, information in respect of the said crime cannot be given. That, the Petitioner’s mother received information in respect of the persons externed by the Shivaji Nagar Police Station. In the said list names of Tejas Laxman Patil and Sagar Laxman Patil appear at serial no.12 and 13. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the externed persons in breach of the order are moving freely in the vicinity of the residence of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the said persons are also suspected in the crime.
4.8) That, the Petitioner and his family have followed up the matter with the Investigating Authorities seeking a proper investigation in the murder of Sanjay Shriram Patil. The Petitioner and his family have provided vital information and evidence based on which there is a strong suspicion that the murder of the Petitioner’s father has been committed by Suraj Vilas Patil, Harsh Sunil Patil, Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Sandip Bhagat, Sachin Mali, Kiran Vilas Patil and builder Sanjay Agarwal in addition to the two persons who have been accused in the crime. That, the investigating Agency has not investigated the crime properly. The CCTV footage has not been collected, statements of eye witnesses and of persons having relevant and vital information have not been collected. The important and vital aspects, though informed to the investigating Agency have not been enquired into or investigated. That, the Charge-sheet is filed only against two accused when the Petitioner has given names of other persons such as noted above, on whom there is a strong suspicion and evidence. That, the investigating Agency in the Charge-sheet has stated that if and when they get strong evidence against other accused they will take steps to investigate and file a supplementary charge-sheet.
5) A perusal of the FIR reveals that, it is the contention of the Petitioner and his family that the murder of the deceased has been taken place due to certain land disputes for which a civil suit was filed by the deceased and is pending. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the defendants in the said suit along with others i.e Suraj Vilas Patil, Harsh Sunil Patil, Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Sandip Bhagat, Sachin Mali, Kiran Vilas Patil and builder Sanjay Agarwal had hatched conspiracy and with the common intention committed the said murder. That, the Police Investigating Agency has been informed all names of the persons on whom the Petitioner and his family is having a strong suspicion. The same has been followed up by the Petitioner but no action has been taken. Basic and primary things such as collecting CCTV footage, recording statements of the Petitioner’s family and gathering information/evidence have not been done by the investigating Agency. The investigating Agency has only charge-sheeted two persons that i.e (i) Suraj Vilas Patil and (ii) Harsh Sunil Patil.
6) From the record it appears that, the basic contention of the Petitioner is that the assault on the deceased has been carried out by the persons who are defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2020 along with their family members. The Petitioner suspects that, Shantaram Patil and his family is involved in hatching the conspiracy and consequent thereto committing the murder of the deceased. We have noted that, the Petitioner and his family have been in continuous follow up with the investigating Agency. In the said follow up letters, the Petitioner and his family have referred to the names of the specific individuals who according to them were involved in committing the murder of the deceased.
7) From the record it appears that, basic inquiries and investigations like collecting the CCTV footage, making inquiries with persons in and around the crime scene, taking statements of the family members of the deceased to gather information have not been carried out diligently and if done have been delayed and the information received therein is not investigated. We have noted that, the incident is of 23rd October 2024, and as of 30th December 2024, inspite of the Petitioner and his family providing information to the investigating Agency, no steps have been taken to investigate the matter. The perusal of the post-mortem would indicate that, the deceased had about 15 incised stab bones. The said wounds are of grievous nature and the deceased is seen to have been assaulted on the entire body. The deceased has also suffered fractures in the said assault.
8) A perusal of the charge-sheet would indicate that, the investigating Agency has infact concluded that the land deal/land dispute in respect of the land at the MIDC, Ambernath which was purchased by the deceased from Shantaram Patil was the reason for the murder of the said deceased. The investigating Agency has stated that on 22nd October 2024, the accused Suraj Patil and Harsh Patil followed the deceased Sanjay Patil and then assaulted him with a sharp weapon on his stomach, chest, back, left side of the ribs, etc. Surprisingly, the investigating Agency has specifically stated that, if in the course investigation of crime they find that other accused had participated and if they get strong evidence against them they would file a supplementary charge-sheet. We are appalled at the said statement. In the present case, the Petitioner and his family has provided evidence, information, raised suspicion and given names of specific individuals. The investigating Agency instead of investigating the matter and looking into the grievances and concerns of the Petitioner and his family have chosen not to investigate the matter and at the same time keep open an option to conduct further investigation. This conduct of the investigating Agency to say the least, is suspicious and leads one to doubt about the bonafide of the investigating Agency.
9) We have perused the statement of the Petitioner’s mother dated 29th October 2024. The witness has clearly stated that, there was a land dispute between the deceased and Shantaram Patil. That, the deceased has purchased 5 acres land from Shantaram Patil which was subsequently sold by the said Shantaram Patil to a third person. As on the 7/12 extract of the said land, the name of a builder Sanjay Agarwal was mutated there was dispute between the deceased, Sanjay Agarwal (builder), Shantaram Patil and Vilas Patil i.e. the son of Shantaram Patil. In her statement, the Petitioner’s mother has specifically stated that, in the year 2020 due to the land dispute Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Kiran Patil, Suraj Patil, Sandip Bhagat and Sachin Mali along with 30 to 50 people threatened the deceased. That, the deceased had filed complaints through his Advocate with the Police. That, the deceased, had filed a Civil Suit, wherein the Court had granted status-quo Orders. That, between 2022 and 2023 as the dispute was going on, builder Sanjay Agarwal had threatened to kill the deceased if he did not let go of the land dispute. That, in the past the deceased has been threatened by the said Sanjay Agarwal. The Petitioner’s mother has specifically stated that murder of the deceased has committed by Suraj Vilas Patil, Harsh Sunil Patil, Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Sandip Bhagat, Sachin Mali, Kiran Vilas Patil and builder Sanjay Agarwal and all of them have participated. In her statement, she has specifically stated that all persons have involved in the murder and they should be dealt with in accordance with law.
10) We have also perused the statement of Krunali Sanjay Patil dated 29th October 2024 (daughter of the deceased). In her statement, the daughter of the deceased had stated that about 20 days ago at about 11.30 when she had returned to her room, from the window of her room she noticed that on the terrace of neighboring house Sagar Patil, Suraj Patil, Kiran Patil and some other persons were sitting and consuming alcohol. She has stated that, she over-heard their conversation in which Suraj Patil told his maternal uncle (Sandip Mama) that the work has to be done. The said Sandip in reply stated that, we shall do the work and enquire if the arrangements for the same were made. The witness contends that in the said conversation Vilas Patil i.e. father of accused no. 1 had stated that, Agarwal i.e builder, would take care of the money aspect. If the statement of this witness is considered, the logical investigation that would be required to done is in respect of the conspiracy which was allegedly hatched or plan was made. The persons involved, the nature and object of the conspiracy etc. would be required to be looked into by the investigating Agency. The said aspects do not seem to have been investigated. The reasons can only be known to the investigating Agency.
11) A perusal of the Statement of Mukund Shriram Patil and the supplementary statement of the Petitioner both dated 2nd November 2024, would indicate that the case of the Petitioner is that, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Kiran Vilas Patil, Sandip Bhagat, Sachin Mali and builder Sanjay Agarwal and some 30 to 50 goons had threatened to murder the deceased victim if he did not withdraw the case which is filed in respect of land dispute. Perusal of the Statement of one Mr. Dnyaneshwar Gholap recorded on 4th November 2024, (recorded one month after the date of incident) indicates that Mr. Gholap is a key witness as he was with the deceased on the night of the murder. Mr. Gholap in his statement has stated that, the deceased/victim had told him that, his life was in danger and there were threats from the parties who were opposing him in the land litigation i.e. Sanjay Agarwal, Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Kiran Patil and Suraj Patil and their family. We have also noted that, the investigating Agency has in fact acknowledged and accepted that the murder of the deceased was committed due to land dispute which was between the deceased and Vilas Patil, Suraj Vilas Patil and Harsh Sunil Patil. We are of the opinion that, if the investigating Agency accepts the land dispute as the motive and reason for the murder, then in that case it is imperative on the Investigating Authority to have investigated the role of other named suspects. The investigating Agency cannot shirk of the said responsibility and duty. We have also noted that, during the remand application the investigating Agencies have specifically requested for police custody of the 2 accused to ascertain whether any other person were involved in the offence or if any other person had abated in the commission of the said offence. This has been stated by the investigating Agency itself on 26th October, 2024. This is one more reason as to why it was incumbent on the Investigating Agency to investigate into the conspiracy and role if any of the other suspects as named by the Petitioner and his family. It appears to us that, no investigation has been conducted in that regard. Further considering the witness statements, the Post-mortem Report and number of injuries, the investigating Agency ought to have also examined if there were more than two persons, who assaulted the deceased. Though, the Petitioner and his family members have specifically given names of the other suspected persons or had serious suspicion about, we find that there is no investigation in their behalf.
12) It appears that, the weapons i.e. two choppers with blood stained clothes were also found outside the family house of the Accused no. 2 and Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil and Kiran Patil. The Police Agency has found blood stains on a two wheeler vehicle i.e. a Dio scooty bearing no. MH 05 FE 1526, which was allegedly used by the Accused nos. 1 and 2 to flee the crime scene. This vehicle was also parked right outside the house of the accused. There are statements of the relatives of the accused which have been recorded. Statements of Vandana Vilas Patil, Vilas Shantaram Patil, Kiran Vilas Patil, Shantaram Dudha Patil all dated 1st December, 2024 have been recorded. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the said statements would prima facie indicate that, there was a conspiracy hatched to commit the murder of the deceased and the persons against whom suspicion has been raised were involved. Despite such clear indications there is no investigation done in that aspect. A perusal of the statement of Sandip Ramakant Bhagat, dated 1st December, 2024 also indicates a conspiracy and that there seems to be some harboring of some of the suspects. These aspects have also not been investigated.
13) We further note that, the Krunali Patil in her statement dated 29th October 2024 has specifically referred to certain CCTV footage which would indicate that, the deceased was followed by Harsh Patil and that there was another white car which can be seen in the footage which follows the deceased. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the said white car i.e. venue car, belonged to Sachin Mali one of the named suspects. This aspect also not been investigated by the investigating Agency.
14) We have also noted that, the contents of the letter dated 15th January, 2025 addressed by the Petitioner’s mother to the Commissioner of Police Thane, City Thane. In the said letter the Petitioner’s mother has specifically stated that, the names of certain accused persons have been omitted in the FIR and there is a deliberate delay in carrying out the investigation so as to screen evidence. The Petitioner’s mother has also specifically stated that the Investigating Agency had on 1st December, 2024 assured the Petitioner and that investigation would be transferred to the crime branch. Considering the overall facts of the case and perusal of the chargesheet it appears that, a complete and thorough investigation has not been conducted by the Investigating Agency.
15) The Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Kumar and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884 dealing with the prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI, observed that: “47. ……..we are conscious of the fact that though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency.”
16) We find that, the investigation in the present matter is not thorough, complete and proper. An improper or incomplete investigation, even if the charge-sheet has been filed, can be cured by giving directions to undertake a further complete, effective and proper investigation. To comprehensively achieve the said object either investigation can be transferred to an other agency or it may be directed that the same be conducted under supervision of an officer of a superior rank. We are of the opinion that, to provide a fair, proper, complete and unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the investigating Agency and the courts if the need arises or called upon are required to ensure that the same is done in letter and spirit. We are also mindful of the fact that, an order of further investigation or transfer of investigation proceeds on the premise that the investigation is lacking in material aspects, not properly and comprehensively done or improperly done for reasons best known to the Investigating Agency. An order of further investigation or transfer of investigation is a very significant and important power which is required to be exercised with caution, sparingly and in exceptional situations and cases with the sole objective to do justice.
17) Considering the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the investigation has not been done in a proper manner. A complete and effective investigation is lacking. The investigation has not considered all the facts, circumstances and the different angles which are required to be investigated into. To do complete justice and be fair to all parties, an investigation is required to be carried out in the proper direction. A further and proper investigation is required to be carried out under the supervision of a senior officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. On the perusal of the charge-sheet it would prima facie indicate that, the following are some of aspects/facts which have not been looked into or investigated by the Authorities.
(i) Statements of the Petitioner and other witnesses were initially not recorded for period of about one week and only after continuous follow up and addressing letters to the Investigating Agency that, certain statements were recorded.
(ii) That, the Petitioners have raised suspicion and certain individuals are specifically named to be involved in the murder. It seems that, no investigation was carried out of that aspect. This gains immense significance and also raises concerns, when the Investigating Agencies have themselves acknowledged and admitted that, the deceased was murdered due to the ongoing land dispute. It would only be logical to investigate the persons involved and related to the said land dispute.
(iii) The Petitioner has specifically named those persons involved in the land dispute as the suspects. Unfortunately, perusal of the record and the charge-sheet would indicate that, no investigation in regard to the involvement of the said suspects or the conspiracy hatched has been conducted by the investigating Agency. Pertinent to note that, the investigating Agency had sought remand of the 2 accused persons to investigate the same suspect. We find there is no investigation.
(iv) On various occasions, the Petitioner and family members have addressed the communication to the investigating Agency and called upon them to investigate the matter properly. There is no reply in that regard that, the investigating Agency delayed in recording the statements of the family members of the deceased, did not collect the CCTV footage and other evidence from the spot of the incident.
(v) The Petitioner and his family has informed the investigating Agency that, the externed individuals Tejas Laxman Patil and Sagar Laxman Patil who have been externed by the Shivaji Nagar Police Station were moving freely in the vicinity of the Petitioner’s residence and pose a grave and serious threats to the Petitioner and his family. No steps seems to have been taken by the investigating Agency in that regard.
(vi) That, the investigating Agencies have contended that, they have collected the CCTV footage from the crime scene and nearby area. The RTI enquiry of the Petitioner’s mother dated 26th December 2024, seeking information as to whether the CCTV cameras from the Wadavali Section to Swami Samarth Chowk, Shiv Mandir (main gate) were working between 21st October, 2024 to 23rd October, 2024, has revealed that, though the CCTV cameras were installed in the area the said camera were non functioning during the relevant time due to technical reasons
(vii) In such facts of the case the Investigating Agencies informing the
Petitioner that, they have collected the CCTV footage from the crime scene is misleading. If true, this is a clear false statement and misleading information given to the Complainant. This is against the basic provisions of the law.
(viii) The Petitioner’s contention is that, the Petitioner’s personal enquiries with the persons in the vicinity of the spot of crime revealed that 8 to 10 individuals assaulted and attacked the Petitioner’s father. There seems to be no investigation and/or enquiry in that regard. In the charge-sheet the investigating Agency has only stated that, if they get any further evidence against other accused they will take steps and file supplementary charge-sheet, whether investigation has been carried out or not in respect of the Petitioner’s contention is not known.
(ix) The Petitioner has informed them that, the finger prints and blood sample from the car of the deceased have not been taken. No steps are taken in that regard.
(x) The Petitioner has giving specific names of suspects i.e. Shantaram
Patil, Vilas Patil, Kiran Patil, Sandip Bhagat, Tejas Patil, Sagar Patil, Sanjay Agrawal and Sachin Mali. Still there is no investigation, even though the investigating Agency accept and acknowledge the fact that, the murder is due to a land dispute and the said persons are related/connected to the said land dispute.
(xi) The Petitioner’s mother has specifically stated that, the builder
Sanjay Agrawal, Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil and others had given threats to the deceased. That, in the year 2022 the very same people i.e. Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Kiran Patil, Suraj Vilas Patil, Sandip Bhagat, Sachin Mali had come with about 30 to 50 people and threatened to murder the deceased if the land dispute is not withdrawn. This is a specific allegation with names, details and a motive. The said contention is also reiterated by Mukund Shriram Patil and Petitioner in their statement dated 2nd November, 2024. There is no investigation in that regard.
(xii) The Petitioner’s sister Krunali Sanjav Patil in her statement specifically stated that, she had heard the conversation between certain people including Sagar Patil i.e. Accused no. 1, Kiran Patil, Sandip Bhagat wherein there was reference of job which was to be done and that the money is to be raised by builder Sanjay Agarwal. The conversation indicates a conspiracy or at least a plan. This aspect also does not seems to have been investigated.
(xiii) The statement of Mr. Dnyaneshwar Gholap dated 4th November,
2024 indicates that, the deceased had himself told him that his life was in danger from the parties who are opposing him in the land litigation i.e. Sanjay Agarwal, Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil, Kiran Patil, Suraj Patil and their families etc. There is still no investigation.
(xiv) As regards the allegation of conspiracy, it appears that, the blood stained weapons of the crime i.e. two choppers were found outside the family house of Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil and Kiran Patil. So also the two wheeler scooter, which was used by the charge-sheeted accused to flee from the crime scene was found at the house. There were blood stains on the scooter.
(xv) There are certain statements recorded of the relatives of the accused which would indicate that, they were atleast aware of the conspiracy. An in depth enquiry and investigation in that regard is therefore must.
(xvi) The CCTV footage of Hutatma Chowk and Govind Tirth bridge reveals that, Harsh Patil was following the deceased victim before his murder and Sachin Mali’s Car (white venue car) also seems to be following the deceased victim. This angle does not appear to have been investigated.
(xvii) In fact it appears that, the investigating Agency has mislead the
Petitioner’s family members in the respect of the progress of investigation, collecting of fingerprints and blood samples from the car, collecting the CCTV footage etc. This conduct raises suspicion on the investigation which is carried out till date. (xviii)The investigation has not been proper, is delayed and seems to have been carried out in a lackadaisical manner. That, despite finding murder weapons and the two wheeler vehicle outside the family residence of Shantaram Patil, Vilas Patil and Kiran Patil and a direct allegations against them of their involvement there is no proper investigation in that regard.
18) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after considering the entire charge-sheet, we are of the prima facie opinion that, the investigation has not been carried out in proper, complete and effective manner. The investigating Agency at least ought to have considered the contention and/or allegation of the Petitioner and investigated into the various aspects and allegations. We are of the opinion that, considering the nature of the allegations and seriousness thereof, proper and thorough investigation is required.
19) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the Commissioner of Police Thane, City Thane to appoint an officer of the I.P.S. cadre and not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police of a District to further investigate into the present crime, allegations and contentions raised by the Petitioner in this present petition.
20) We direct that, the newly appointed investigating officer to consider the contentions of present petition along with all the letters and contentions raised by the Petitioner and his family members therein and conduct a proper and thorough investigation into the case.
21) The investigation to be carried out under the supervision of the newly appointed officer will make all sincere efforts and endevours to complete the investigation within a period of 12 weeks from the date of uploading of this Judgment on the official website of the High Court of Bombay.
22) We make it clear that, we have not expressed any opinion on the involvement of any of the particular person in the crime and it is for the newly appointed investigating Agency to ascertain the same.
23) Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) ( A.S. GADKARI, J.)