Can a vacation bench move the Pradeep Purnekar murder probe out of the hands of the Special Investigation Team? The Bombay High Court has said it cannot, observing that a court does not direct how an investigation is run.
Mumbai: The family of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Pradeep Purnekar came to the Bombay High Court on Friday, November 6, 2026, asking for the investigation into his murder in Thane to be taken away from the Special Investigation Team (SIT), but left without urgent relief and with liberty to approach the regular bench once the court reopens after the vacation [Mandar Ghodke v. State of Maharashtra and Others].
The plea was heard by a vacation bench of Justice Advait Sethna and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale. The remarks set out below were made orally during the hearing.
Why not in the vacation?
The Bench asked why the matter had to be taken up during the vacation at all, pointing out that only 37 days had passed since the incident and that time still remained for the investigation to be completed and a chargesheet filed.
What is this? You want the probe to be transferred in vacation? There are still over 45 days.
Counsel was also reminded of the limits on a court’s power over a pending probe. The Bench said:
It is more than settled law, this court cannot direct the manner in which the investigation has to go on. There are orders deprecating this… You may have a foolproof case. We are not doubting that. But at this stage, for the vacation court to do anything is not possible.
What the family wanted
Pradeep Purnekar was killed in Thane on September 29, 2026, and the killing has set off a political row across Maharashtra. His family members, including the original complainant Mandar Ghodke, moved the High Court asking for an independent probe.
In the petition, they allege that the SIT is shielding those they describe as the real political masterminds behind the killing, and that the team has ignored important evidence they handed over, which, according to them, links the alleged conspirator to the arrested suspects. These are allegations made in the petition and have not been tested in court.
Counsel for the petitioners told the Bench:
The investigation should be transferred. We are not satisfied with the investigation which is going on right now.
What the State told the Court
Special Public Prosecutor Rajeev Chavan defended the pace of the SIT’s work. Five arrests, he said, had been made within 10 days of the murder, and the material supplied by the petitioners had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Backs SIT Probe in Sabarimala Gold Case, Says No Need for CBI Inquiry
Where the plea stands
No interim direction was passed on the transfer plea. The petitioners were allowed to mention the matter before the regular bench on the first day the court reopens after the vacation.
The Court has not ruled on the merits of the transfer plea. The allegations against the SIT and against any person remain untested, and every arrested accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Why the hearing matters
The hearing reflects a settled principle: courts may monitor whether an investigation is fair, but they do not direct an investigating agency on how to collect evidence or which line of inquiry to pursue. Transfer of a probe to another agency is an exceptional remedy, used where the existing investigation is shown to be tainted or ineffective.
It also shows the narrow role of a vacation bench. With the statutory period for filing a chargesheet still running and the State pointing to arrests and forensic analysis, the Bench left the family’s grievance to be examined in full by the regular bench.
Case Title: Mandar Ghodke v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Bench: Justice Advait Sethna and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale (Vacation Bench), Bombay High Court
Date of Hearing: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Special Public Prosecutor Rajeev Chavan for the State
