The Bombay High Court has transferred the investigation of the murder of ex-corporator Abhishek Ghosalkar to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court ruled in favor of Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar, the petitioner and wife of the deceased, who claimed that the local police investigation was incomplete and failed to explore critical angles, including potential conspiracies involving other individuals. The court emphasized the need for an impartial and thorough investigation to ensure justice and maintain public confidence.

Case Details:

• Petitioner: Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar (wife of the deceased).
• Deceased: Abhishek Ghosalkar, ex-corporator of Shiv Sena (UBT).
• Incident: Abhishek Ghosalkar was brutally murdered on February 8, 2024, during a Facebook live broadcast by Mauris Noronha, who shot Ghosalkar and later killed himself.
• Police Investigation: Initially handled by M.H.B. Colony Police Station, later transferred to Crime Branch, Unit XI, Mumbai.
• Legal Plea: Petitioner requested the investigation be handed over to the CBI, citing a lack of thoroughness and the need for an independent probe.

Key Events:

1. Murder: The murder was a public and brutal act, streamed live on Facebook, leaving behind suspicions of a larger conspiracy.
2. Involvement of Others: Petitioner alleged that others, including Amrendra (Mauris’ bodyguard) and Mehul Parekh, were also involved.
3. Local Investigation: Crime Branch filed charges against Amrendra but allegedly failed to explore the potential conspiracy.

Court Observations:

• The investigation by the local police was insufficient, particularly concerning the potential involvement of others and the thorough examination of key evidence.
• The court expressed concerns over the contradictory statements made by suspects like Mehul and Amrendra, raising suspicion of a conspiracy.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302: Charged against Mauris Noronha for murder.
• Arms Act Sections 3, 25: Against Mauris for illegal possession and use of firearms.
• Maharashtra Police Act Sections 37 (1)(a) r/w 135: Against Mauris for violating police regulations.
• IPC Section 120B r/w 34: Petitioner sought the addition of these sections for criminal conspiracy.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Bombay High Court concluded that the existing investigation by the Crime Branch lacked depth and failed to address key aspects of the case, including potential conspiracies. Given the severity of the crime and the public outcry, it ordered the transfer of the investigation to the CBI to ensure an impartial and thorough inquiry. The court emphasized that the transfer was necessary to maintain public trust in the justice system.