Supreme Court notice to CBI on plea opposing bail to Dabholkar killer

Anti-superstition activist Narender Dabholkar was killed in Pune on August 20, 2013 and the accused in question was arrested in May 2019 for his role in conducting a reconnaissance of the area where Dabholkar used to take his walk

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a petition filed by the kin of murdered anti-superstition activist Narender Dabholkar opposing bail granted by the Bombay high court to one of the men accused in the case, Vikram Vinay Bhave.

A view of Supreme Court. (HT Archive)

The petition filed by Dabholkar’s daughter Mukta and son Hameed challenged the May 6 order passed by the high court allowing the bail plea of Bhave on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and two sureties in the like amount. He was also required to report to the local police station every day in the first month of bail, twice a week in the second and third month after release, and thereafter, once a month.

Dabholkar was killed in Pune on August 20, 2013 and the accused in question was arrested in May 2019 for his role in conducting a reconnaissance of the area where Dabholkar used to take his walk, and to provide logistical support to the two accused who committed the murder.

The bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy issued notice to the CBI, the state of Maharashtra and Bhave. While initially the court was of the view that the role attributed to the accused was small, senior advocate Anand Grover appearing for the Dabholkar kin informed that the crime was committed by Bhave while he was out on bail in a criminal case involving Explosive Substances Act. In that crime, he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He was released on bail on May 8, 2013 and within three months (of bail) he conspired to commit the murder of Dabholkar, Grover said. Considering this aspect, the court agreed to issue a notice.

Grover even attributed a larger plot against Bhave accusing the organisation to which he belonged - Sanatan Sanstha – being involved in similar killings of persons opposed to the organisation’s ideology, referring to the murder of Gauri Lankesh in Bengaluru in September 2017.

Since Bhave was not named an accused in Lankesh murder case, the bench told Grover, “This is a very dangerous precedent if we start imputing motive to a particular ideology. What you are suggesting will have serious repercussions on other cases.”

It was at the instance of the present petitioners that the investigation into Dabholkar’s death was transferred to CBI in June 2014 by an order of the Bombay high court. The CBI named three persons for the crime – Virendra Tavade, Sharad Kalaskar and Sachin Andure In all, there are six accused persons named by CBI.

Bhave is charged for murder (IPC Section 302), destruction of evidence (IPC Section 201), criminal conspiracy (IPC Section 120B) and terrorist act (Section 16) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Dabholkar’s kin in their petition filed through advocate Krishna Kumar said, “Considering the criminal antecedents of the appellant (Bhave) there is reasonable apprehension of tampering the evidence and witnesses. The charges levelled against the appellant are of grave and serious nature and involves connection series of murders, therefore it has far-reaching consequences on the society at large and involves national interest.”