The perpetrators of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare murders have ensured that dissent is silenced, the HC said. (File)The Bombay High Court on Thursday said that the perpetrators of the Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare murders have ensured that dissent is silenced and if anyone has a distinct opinion than the majority, then they could meet the same fate as Dabholkar, Pansare, M M Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh.
A division bench of Justice S C Dharmadhikari and Justice Gautam Patel were hearing petitions filed by the family members of Dabholkar and Pansare, seeking court supervision in probes conducted by central and state agencies.
Senior counsel Ashok Mundargi, appearing for the CBI, which is investigating the murder of Dabholkar, told the HC that efforts were being made to arrest the main shooters and that the agency won’t give up easily. On this, the bench said that it is their suggestion to the CBI to take assistance from all the central agencies so that the main accused are nabbed. “…it is the accused who is benefited by lack of coordination and proper understanding between the investigating agencies at state and central level,” the bench said.
It further added, “The perpetrators of these crimes have ensured that dissent is silenced, at least temporarily, that if you voice a different and distinct opinion than that of the majority, then your fate will be like that of these four eminent persons and it is that chilling message which the state must take note of.”
In the Pansare murder case, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) informed the HC that the weapons used in the crime were allegedly thrown in the creek or sea and no divers can be employed to go deep, recover and seize them. It further said that to carry out this search, a clearance is required from the environment department, which would be at the central level. There are state departments as well, along with the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), which was approached by the SIT, and they have presented certain difficulties.
On this, the bench said, “We do not see how laws relating to ecology and environment are affected and adversely for any such cases as are before us. None would be able to then efficiently and properly investigate the crime.”
