The Division Bench, led by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Shyam C. Chandak, transferred the case to the CBI after finding ‘loose ends’ in the crime branch’s inquiry. This decision followed a petition from Ghosalkar’s widow, Tejaswee Ghosalkar.
Mumbai: On Friday(7th Sept): The Bombay High Court instructed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation into the murder of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and former BMC corporator Abhishek Ghosalkar, who was killed while speaking live on Facebook (Meta).
READ ALSO: Bombay High Court Revokes Bail in Instagram Minor Blackmail Case
The Division Bench, led by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Shyam C. Chandak, transferred the case to the CBI after finding ‘loose ends’ in the crime branch’s inquiry. This decision followed a petition from Ghosalkar’s widow, Tejaswee Ghosalkar.
The bench stated,
“If all aspects of a case are not thoroughly investigated, as is evident here, it could result in a miscarriage of justice. Even minor lapses in the investigation cannot be overlooked, as they would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the process, ultimately leading to an injustice that must be prevented.”
According to the order, the CBI’s Zonal Director is required to appoint an officer of at least the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP) to lead the investigation.
Abhishek Ghosalkar, 41, the son of a former Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA, was tragically shot during a Facebook Live session in Borivali, Mumbai, on February 8. The shooter, Mauris Noronha, who was a rival, subsequently took his own life.
In transferring the case, the bench noted that the quality of the investigation was crucial for solving the crime and prosecuting those responsible.
The judges observed that certain aspects had not been thoroughly investigated by the local police, necessitating a more comprehensive inquiry. They reviewed the investigation and identified gaps that had not been addressed.
“Given the unique facts and circumstances of this case, we find it appropriate to transfer the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI to maintain public trust and ensure justice is served,”
the bench stated.
The petitioner, Tejasvee Ghosalkar, raised concerns primarily about two individuals: Mehul Parekh, who worked in Noronha’s office, and Amrendra Mishra, Noronha’s bodyguard.
Advocate Bhushan Mahadik, representing Tejasvee, argued that the statements made by Parekh and Mishra to the police were “untruthful.”
Mahadik emphasized that this was not a case of political rivalry but a request for a thorough investigation to explore all angles and rule out the involvement of others, including Parekh and Mishra. Mumbai Police had reported that Noronha harbored a grudge against Ghosalkar due to a case registered against him based on Tejasvee’s complaint.
