Poonam Nityanand Pandey vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Poonam Nityanand Pandey vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed and disposed of. Police directed to submit the viscera report of the deceased to the trial Court as soon as received.

Issue for consideration

Whether the investigation of C.R. No.119 of 2019 (Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station, Thane Rural) should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. +1 more

Court's answer

No case is made out for transfer of the investigation to the CBI, considering that the police have collected the evidence as against the accused and filed three charge-sheets.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's allegation that not a single eye-witness's statement was recorded is not true; the police recorded the statement of the one eye-witness who had seen the deceased being picked up by the accused.

Key takeaways

The Petition is dismissed and disposed of.ratio¶36
The police are to submit the viscera report of the deceased to the trial Court as soon as the same is received.ratio¶37-38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition No.5772 of 2024 (filed August 2023), by Poonam Nityanand Pandey, wife of the deceased, sought transfer to the CBI of the investigation of C.R. No.119 of 2019 (Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station, Thane Rural; complaint dated 17.03.2019 re incident of 16.03.2019), re-arrest of the accused, a comprehensive charge-sheet in the Sessions Court, appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, and Narco and Lie Detector tests of all named accused. The State reported that two accused were arrested and charge-sheeted on 18.07.2019; supplementary charge-sheets followed on 27.09.2019 and 01.03.2025, the latter addressing the lacunae highlighted by the petitioner and incorporating additional material (bank statements, CDR/IPDR, other documents). The statement of the sole eye-witness (who saw the deceased being picked up) was recorded; there were no eye-witnesses where the body was found, and no CCTV footage existed. Held: no case is made out for transfer of the investigation to the CBI as the police collected the evidence against the accused and filed three charge-sheets; the petition was dismissed and disposed of, with a direction that the police submit the deceased's viscera report to the trial Court on receipt. Bench: Revati Mohite Dere & Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ. (Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, 03.03.2025).

Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2025.03.06 11:53:02 +0530

NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS

30-wp.5772.2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5772 OF 2024

Poonam Nityanand Pandey ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

Ms. Tamsin Monis i/b Mr. Sadanand Bansode for the Petitioner.

Ms. Kranti T. Hiwrale, A.P.P for the Respondents-State.

PSI – Mr. Santosh Wakchaure from Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station, Thane Rural, is present.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATE : 3^rd MARCH 2025

P.C. :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to transfer

the investigation of C.R. No.119 of 2019 registered with the Bhiwandi

Taluka Police Station, Thane Rural to the Central Bureau of Investigation; to re-arrest the accused and other accused in the aforesaid C.R.; to file a comprehensive charge-sheet in the Sessions

1/5

N. S. Chitnis

30-wp.5772.2024.doc

Court; appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and for conducting Narco and Lie Detector tests of all the accused named in the crime.

Learned APP states that the police have investigated the case fairly and impartially. She states that an FIR was registered on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint on 17^th March 2019 with the Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station, Thane Rural. She states that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the said case against two accused on 18^th July 2019. She states that the first supplementary charge-sheet in the said case was filed on 27^th September 2019. Learned APP states that the second supplementary charge-sheet has been filed on 1^st March 2025 and that in the second supplementary charge-sheet, all the lacunaes pointed out by the petitioner have been addressed whilst filing the same. She states that the police have collected the bank statements of the accused, the CDR and IPDR of one of the accused and several other documents and that all these documents have been included in the second supplementary chargesheet. She states that although the petitioner has alleged that the

2/5

N. S. Chitnis

30-wp.5772.2024.doc

statement of the eye-witnesses have not been recorded, the police had found only one eye-witness in the said case who had seen the deceased being picked-up by the accused and as such have recorded his statement.

Perused the papers. As noted above, the incident is of 16^th March 2019. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased, who lodged the complaint with the Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station on 17^th March 2019, pursuant to which, C.R. No.119 of 2019, came to be registered with the Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station. During the course of the investigation, two accused came to be arrested and charge-sheet has been filed against the said accused. It appears that the police have already recorded the statement of one of the eye-witness in the said case, who had seen the deceased being picked up by the accused. It further appears that the first supplementary charge-sheet in the said case was filed on 27^th September 2019. The aforesaid petition has been filed in August 2023 alleging that the police have not conducted the investigation properly. Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the

3/5

N. S. Chitnis

30-wp.5772.2024.doc

petitioner tendered certain lacunaes in the charge-sheet filed by the police, which were addressed by the police and additional material was collected i.e. bank statements of the accused, the CDR and IPDR of one of the accused and several other documents were also collected. Learned APP states that since there was no CCTV footage, the police have not collected the same. According to the petitioner, not a single eye-witness’s statement has been recorded. The same is not true, inasmuch as, the police have recorded the statement of one eye-witness who had seen the deceased being picked up by the accused. As far as the place where the dead body was found, there are no eye-witnesses to the same. It appears that the police during the course of the investigation have looked into all the angles as suggested and pointed out by the petitioner and have collected the same. The second supplementary charge-sheet has been filed only on 1^st March 2025 with all the additional documents.

Considering the aforesaid, no case is made out for transfer

of investigation to the CBI, considering that the police have collected

4/5

N. S. Chitnis

30-wp.5772.2024.doc

the evidence as against the accused and filed three charge-sheets. Considering what is stated aforesaid, the Petition is dismissed and disposed of as such.

Needless to state, that the police to submit the Viscera

report of the deceased to the trial Court, as soon as the same is received.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

order.

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

5/5

N. S. Chitnis