IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE WRIT JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2014

DIST- PUNE

In the matter of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section

482 of Cr. P.C;

And

In the matter of closure report dated

11.08.2014 in FIR No. RC

BS22010S0001 by the CBI, ACB, Pune

investigating offences punishable U/s

302, 120-B, 109 & 34 IPC.

And
 In the matter Sessions Case No.

----/--pending before ---------, Pune.

Mr. Sandeep Bhoja Shetty )

Age - ___, Occu: ___________, )

R/at - ) …Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India )

2. The Central Bureau of Investigation )

) …Respondents

3. Mr. Vijay Kumar Shukla )

Deputy Superintendent of Police, )
Central Bureau of Investigation, )
Special Crimes Unit II , New Delhi.

TO,
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

OTHER HONORABLE PUISNE JUDGES OF

THIS HONORABLE HIGH COURT.

THIS HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Petitioner’s late brother had lodged a crime on

15.10.2009 bearing CR No. 152 of 2009 at the Lonavala City

Police Station for offence punishable U/s 420, 467, 468,

471 r/w 34 of the IPC against 13 persons. Out of these 13

persons 2 persons were the representatives of one IRB

group of companies, 1 was the Sub-Registrar of Assurances,

2 were land agents and rest were farmers. It was the case of

the complainant therein that these persons had hatched a

conspiracy and forged documents to usurp government

land. Pursuant to this complaint, the late brother of the

Petitioner was initially offered money to recuse from

prosecuting the said case initiated by him and when he

refused, he was threatened with dire consequences.

2. The late brother of the Petitioner had on 24.11.2009 and

26.11.2009 written letters to the SP, Pune Rural Police,

inter-alia seeking protection and naming the persons from

whom he felt threatened. Annexed hereto and marked Exh.

____ is the copy of the letters dated 24.11.2009 and

26.11.2009. The said letters also disclosed that he was in

 the process of securing documents relating to around 1800

acres of land grabbed by the IRB group of companies by

illegal means. The Petitioner’s brother was brutally killed on

13.01.2010 at 7.15 am on a busy street in Talegaon

Dabhade, Pune by some unknown assailants for which, the

Petitioner lodged a complaint on that day itself vide CR No.

08 of 2010 with the Talegaon Dabhade Police Station for

offences punishable U/s 302 IPC. The Local Crime Branch

of Pune Rural Police initially investigated the said crime. In

the course of this investigation the LCB arrested five

persons purported to be the perpetrators of the said crime.

3. On 14.01.2010, the Hon’ble High Court took suo-moto

cognizance of the heinous crime and Criminal Writ Petition

No. 466 of 2010 was placed before the Division Bench. The

Petitioner intervened in the said Writ and prayed for

investigation at the hands of the CBI. The Maharashtra

Government issued a Notification for the same on

06.04.2010 and the investigation was transferred to the

CBI. The CBI handed over the investigation to CBI STF team

from Mumbai, which was headed by Mr. Pramod Kumar

Manzhi (Dy. SP CBI STF). The STF team did not do any

progress in the investigation for over a year and where not

inclined to probe the role of the powerful accused named in

the FIR by the petitioner, this Hon. Court identified the

malice and made scathing observations against the CBI

during a bail hearing of one of the accused arrested by the

Pune Rural Police, The Hon. Judge observed and raised

 apprehension that CBI was not investigating the rich and

powerful only because they were people with money and

strong political connections. Annexed hereto and marked

Ex. ___ is the copy of the said Order. After this order the

investigation was pulled out from the CBI STF and Handed

over to CBI ACB, Pune. Which was headed by Mr. Sushil

Prasad Singh ( Dy. SP CBI ACB). The new CBI team under

the supervision of Joint Director CBI Mr. Rishi Raj Singh

evaluated the investigation conducted till then and verified

the same. The further investigation conducted by the CBI

negated the investigation conducted by the LCB and threw

light on others who might be involved in the said crime. It

questioned several witnesses, raided Offices and residences

of Mr. Virendra Mhaisker and others associated with IRB

Infrastructures. Annexed hereto and collectively marked Ex.

____ are the media reports, which carried this news. A

polygraph test was conducted on Mr. Virendra Mhaisker

and others associated with IRB Infrastructures. Annexed

hereto and collectively marked Ex. ____ are the media

reports, which carried this news. In the meanwhile, the

Lonavala City Police filed a “C” summary pursuant to their

investigation of CR No. 152 of 2009 before the Ld.

Magistrate, Wadgaon Maval, Pune, which was accepted by

the Ld. Magistrate.

4. Thereafter, the CBI moved this Hon’ble Court vide Writ

Petition No. 2473 of 2013, inter-alia, challenging the “C”

summary filed by the Lonavala Police and accepted by the

 Ld. Magistrate. The contention taken by the CBI in this Writ

was that there was enough material available to charge-

sheet the accused persons therein and the filing of “C”

summary was bad in law and further praying for transfer of

investigation to CBI as this matter establishes the evidence

of motive so far as the case of murder of the brother of

Petitioner was concerned. As the said Writ was filed before

the Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, it set aside the “C”

summary report, however, indicated that the CBI ought to

move the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court for proper

relief of transfer of investigation. Annexed hereto and

collectively marked Ex. ____ is the copy of the Order. As

such, on 05.12.2013, the CBI filed another Writ Petition No.

4298 of 2013, inter-alia, praying that the investigation of CR

No. 152 of 2009 be transferred to CBI. Annexed hereto and

marked Ex. A is the copy of the Writ Petition No. 4298 of

2013 along-with its annexures.

5. On 08.08.2014, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to transfer

the investigation of CR No. 152 of 2009 to the CBI, inter-

alia, observing that the CBI contended that the deceased

Satish Shetty had unearthed the land scam and that the

crime (i.e. of murder) had arisen out of the said scam or

transaction. Annexed hereto as Ex. B is the copy of the

Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 08.08.2014. The CBI, on

11.08.2014 filed closure report in matter of investigation in

the Murder of Late Mr. Satish Shetty. Annexed hereto as Ex.

C is the copy of the said closure report. The dubious action

 of closing the investigation in murder of Late Satish Shetty

by the CBI within two days of obtaining an order from this

Hon. Court for reinvestigating the Land Scam case which

was contended by the CBI to be the motive behind the

murder, in itself revels the malafide intent of the CBI to

protect the real criminals of this crime.

6. It requires special mention that the Closure Report Filed by

CBI had more reasons to investigate than to close the case,

as the then Investigation Officer of the case Mr. S.P Singh

was not only able to identify the motive but was also able to

unearth evidence of abetment and threats to the deceased

by the accused. He had also attached more than enough

evidence to identify a blatant cover-up operation by the

state police, and also forensic evidence in the form of

Polygraph Tests and CDR analysis joining the dots of the

conspiracy of this murder.

7. The petitioner on 12/9/2014 moved this Hon’ble High Court

against this closure report by CBI and filed a Cr. W.P no.

3544 / 2014. Annexed hereto and collectively marked Ex.

____ is the copy of the said Writ Petition. The respondents in

this petition, were the (Respondent No. 1) Director CBI Mr.

Ranjit Sinha , (Respondent No. 2) Current Director Mr. Anil

Sinha who was then a Sp. Director, (Respondent No. 3 Mr.

Keshav Kumar) who was Jt. Director and (Respondent No.

4) The Investigating Officer of this case Mr. Sushil Prasad

Singh. The petitioner in clear terms pointed out the facts

that were told to him by the respondent no. 4 therein who

 was posted a Dy. SP CBI ACB, Akurdi , Pune. The petitioner

also submitted that all the accusation made in the petition

where backed by irrefutable evidence.

8. The facts being, as mentioned in the paras H and I of the

W.P. 3544 /2014 are reproduced hereinafter.

h) The Petitioner was, time and again, till February 2014,

informed by the Respondent No. 3 and 4, that they were

on the right track and that they were convinced that the

motive behind the murder of Late Mr. Satish Shetty was

the filing of CR No. 152 of 2009 by Late Mr. Satish Shetty,

which fact is also reiterated by them in their Writ

Petitions. However, after February 2014, Respondent No.

3 stopped communication with the Petitioner and

Respondent No. 4 seemed to be under tremendous

pressure and was cautious in disclosing the progress of

investigation. The Petitioner did fear that there was some

undercover operation of jeopardizing the investigation that

had been initiated based on some facts reveled by

respondent no.4 , his apprehensions where vindicated by

the action of CBI filing the closure report, which is tale

telling of the want of the Respondent No. 4 to further

investigate and his helplessness in filing the same.

i) The Petitioner further submits that in the month of July

2014, the Respondent No. 4, after immense pursuance by

the Petitioner, revealed that he was under pressure to

close the case by his superiors i.e respondent no. 1 and

2 . He also revealed that in the Final Report (FR1)

 prepared by him, he had recommended prosecution of

Original Accused Nos. 6 to 11 and also noted in the report

that as he was not allowed to arrest these accused so he

could not gather further tangible evidence. It would also

be noteworthy that the branch PP Mr. Saxena and the

HOB Mr. Gawali (Head of Branch, SP) had endorsed this

Final Report and the actions recommended therein.

Respondent No. 4 had also spelled out the apprehension

that he would be transferred once he files the Final Report

before the Ld Magistrate . The Petitioner has reliably

learnt that the Respondent No. 4 has been transferred

immediately after filing of the Closure Report and before

its acceptance by the Ld. Sessions Judge.

9. Respondent no.4 was transferred within a week of his filing

the clouser report as he had anticipate Annexed hereto and

marked Ex. ____ is the copy of the said Transfer Order.

10. The Hon. Judges passed an order on 17/9/2014

directing the investigating officer to specifically reply on the

accusation made by the petitioner in Paras H & I of his

petition within 15 days, copy of the said order annexed

hereto at Exh. F. Even after such serious accusations

against the top most officers of the CBI, the reply was not

filed for more than 2 months, when it was filed it was not

served upon the petitioner keeping him in dark. The reply

filed by the CBI is in itself a self-defeating statement as it

does not specifically refute any allegation and makes a very

 vague and generic submission to very specific allegations by

the petitioner in his affidavit. Annexed hereto and

collectively marked Ex. ____ is the copy of their reply.

Unfortunately for next six months the petitioner did not get

a hearing in this matter as the Writ Petition was,

conveniently, not listed and kept on getting tossed as per

CMIS dates.

11. In the mean while, the CBI was in knowledge that the

petitioner was in possession of a audio recording between

him and the investigating officer, where the IO had detailed

the conspiracy hatched by the top most officers of the CBI to

force a closure in the investigation of the murder of

petitioners brother late Satish Shetty to protect the

Politically connected and Wealthy accused in this case. On 4

January 2015 CBI raided 22 premises including IRB CMD

Mr.Virendra Mhaiskar’s (Accused No.) offices and offices of

other accused in the murder of late Mr. Satish Shetty and

their associates, and it was said that raids where part of the

freshly initiated probe of the Cr.152 /2009 Of the land grab

case against these people registered by late Satish Shetty,

and in which the Hon. Bombay High Court had transferred

the case to the CBI for further investigation. Media reports

related to the same are annexed hereto at Exh. E. These

raids, in the humble submission of the Petitioner, were

conducted with a singular motive of thwarting the efforts of

the Petitioner by nullifying the effect of W.P.No. 3544/2015.

This submission of the Petitioner is supported by valid

 evidence viz. (1) The CBI had already conducted similar

raids in 2012 on IRB and had collected a lot of evidence as

is evident from the Closure Report, (2) The said raids of

January 2015 were strategically in sync with the time of the

hearing of the said Writ Petition, (3) There is not a whisper

of the evidence collected in these so-called raids of January

2015 according to the charge sheet filed by the CBI and (4)

The only reason that comes to the mind of the Petitioner for

the CBI to conduct these eye-wash raids was to create a

situation for declaring re-investigation and in turn to have

the W.P.No. 3544/2015 disposed off. The events that

followed till the filing of the charge sheet are tale telling of

the facts submitted hereinabove.

12. The petitioner had decided to bring the audio evidence on

record via a rejoinder Affidavit as he had not annexed it in

his original petition since he thought that would badly dent

the reputation of the agency like the C.B.I . But in the

meanwhile similar cases of forced closure were brought to

light in the Hon. Supreme Court of India and the Director

CBI was accused of meeting several accused persons

unofficially and it was inferred that these meetings where to

influence the Director CBI to scuttle the probe (Exh..Media).

The petitioner thought he had a strong piece of evidence to

prove that those inferences were not misplaced.

13. On 16 February 2015 the PRO of CBI came out with a

press note declaring re-initiation of the murder probe of late

Satish Shetty on account of Fresh incriminating evidence

 collected during the raids conducted on 5th January 2015 at

residences and offices of Mr. Virendra Mhaisker CMD IRB

Infra, Mr. Gadgil and others related to this Infrastructure

Company Ex.E (Media Reports). This was coincidently or by

design just a day before the petitioner planned to file the

rejoinder in W.P No. 3544/14

14. On 17th February the CBI counsel made a submission to

the Hon. Judges that the Director CBI has decided to

further investigate the already closed late Satish Shetty

murder case through the CBI Special Crime Unit , New

Delhi . The petitioner asked leave to file a rejoinder to bring

more facts to the notice of the Hon. High Court. On 9 th

March the petitioner filed a rejoinder across the bar with the

transcript and the audio recording in a Compact Disc which

was taken on record and marked as Exh__ for identification.

The copy of the said rejoinder is annexed hereto as Exh F.

The CBI counsel argued that as the investigation was

reinitiated and a new investigating officer Mr. Vijay Shukla

has been appointed the petition be disposed. The Hon.

Court pointed out in the order that the prayers of the

petitioner have been addressed and thus the petition is

being disposed Ex.G (Order). It was unfortunate that the

arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the CBI where not

questioned.

15. The new CBI team headed by IO Mr. Vijay Kumar Shukla

commenced further investigation in the murder case of the

 deceased brother of the petitioner. For a couple of months

the new IO Mr.Vijay Kumar Shukla (Dy. Sp SCU II. New

Delhi) communicated with the petitioner and assured of a

fair further investigation, but he also asked the petitioner in

return to stay away from media and not to file any further

writs in this honorable court. He was convinced that he will

not take over six months to crack the case.

16. After the initial period of three months the IO started

ignoring the petitioner and stopped responding to his calls

and text messages. The investigation was totally stone

walled and a complete communication blackout was

maintained with the petitioner by the CBI. Over a year

passed and nothing visible was happening in the case.

17. In the first week of march the petitioner called the DIG

and SP of CBI SU II, New Delhi as he was not being

informed anything about the ongoing probe and no visible

advance on account of investigation were made despite the

CBI informing this Honorable court about incriminating

evidence found in raids done at IRB its associate companies

and individual premises in January 2016. This was the

reason a further investigation was initiated by Director CBI

as informed by the counsel of CBI to this Honorable Court

on 16th February 2016, But both the officers denied to yield

any information

18. During the course of this a Editor of the International

news group REUTERS named Mr.Douglus Busvine

 approached the petitioner to understand the case and

details of investigation in murder of Satish Shetty. His

interest in the case arose due to a story he was doing on a

contract offered to IRB Infra worth Rs.10,500 cr. for

constructing a 14 km long Tunnel at Zozilla Pass in

Kashmir , in a single bid scenario by the Surface Transport

Ministry (Exh.media). It was alleged that this was on

account of close relationship both personal and financial

between the IRB group which is controlled by the Mhaisker

family and Mr. Nitin Gadkari the current minister for

surface transport. As he gathered that CMD of IRB Infra

Mr.Virendra Mhaisker was one of the accused in the murder

of late Satish Shetty, he was keen to know whether the

passage of investigation by CBI which on the face seemed to

be compromised, was also on the same account as alleged

in the contract given to IRB, that is a Political High Hand.

19. This lead Mr.Douglus Busvine to take up this issue with

a Senior Congress MP in Rajya Sabha Mr.Dighvijay Singh

who was spearheading the Zozilla Pass issue in the Rajya

Sabha. As he divulged all the information given to him by

the petitioner, the MP, Mr. Dighvijay Singh’s assessment

was that there was political interference in the probe of Late

Satish Shetty’s murder done by CBI ,thus on 18 th March

2016 he conducted a press conference in New Delhi and

categorically mentioned to take up the issue in the Hon.

Supreme Court. He also distributed documents and

 evidence related to this case to the assembled media

personnel. (Exh.Video)

20. Within a week of this press conference happening a

reporter named Mr. Santosh Kumar from Zee Business

Channel approached the petitioner and presented a desire

to take up this issue through their channel. In a

conversation with the petitioner the reporter from Zee

Business informed the petitioner that he had sent a mail to

the CBI putting a questioner of some questions related to

the investigation of murder of Late Satish Shetty, As this

were not easy to answer for the CBI, thus the CBI PRO tried

to convince him not do the Story (Exh.Video). DNA a daily

news publication too sent some questions that where very

tough to answer for the CBI (Exh.DNA Story). A Indian

Express reporter from Pune also had a similar experience as

he contacted CBI for similar questions and to his surprise

the PRO called him and tried to convince him to not go

ahead with his story , he was surprised that PRO personally

called him which was unprecedented (Exh.IE Story) …

Eventually after coming under tremendous pressure from

these events CBI made their first arrests in this case on 6

April 2016 where they arrested two retired police officers Mr.

Bhausaheb Andhalkar and Mr. Namdeo Kauthale who were

part of the investigating team of Local Crime Branch Pune

Rural Police, investigating the murder of Late Satish Shetty.

The Charges made were _____ .

21. These arrests created some hope, but the petitioner was

aware of the circumstances in which these arrests were

made, and was pessimistic about further arrests. Thereafter

for 60 days there was no new evidence brought up in the

honorable Sessions Court. But the CBI opposed bail for the

arrested.

22. The petitioner was keen to see the charge sheet that the

CBI would file against the accused as the 90 day deadline

was expiring. The CBI filed a charge sheet on ______________

under sections __________________ . The petitioner acquired

a copy of the charge sheet and his pessimism stood

vindicated as the charsheet dropped the section 302 . He

was also surprised to see that no new evidence was

gathered by CBI in over 18 months of investigation. The

chargsheet was literally a cut paste job from the closure

report filed by the CBI in August 2014 where both this

officers were exonerated. The copy of the said Charge Sheet

is annexed hereto and marked as Exh H.

23. One more glaring aspect revealing the CBI’s intent is that

the re-investigation handed over by this Hon. Court in the

matter of CR 152/2009, where the CBI on oath in its

affidavit to this Hon. Court had argued that there was more

than enough evidence available with it to chargsheet the

accused in that CR, has not moved an inch in its

investigation in the said matter for past 2 years. As the

accused in both the matters are same and the agency

investigating the matters is the same both these matters

 have been lying in the abyss without any progress. Thus

clearly indicating Malafide intentions of CBI.

24. As the petitioner is now aware that the stakes in this

case are very high as very powerful people are getting

involved in covering up of this case, the relationship

between the prime accused in the case Mr. Virendra

Mhaiskar CMD IRB Infrastructure and Mr. Nitin Gadkari a

sitting Cabinet Minister in the Union Government of India is

exhaustively reported. Annexed hereto and collectively

marked Ex. ____ are the media reports. So the petitioner is

apprehensive that he may be eliminated, as he is the only

person now who is resisting this cover up operation. The

previous attempt done by the CBI to close the case was

thwarted by the petitioner with the help of this Hon. Court.

The petitioner therefore believes that in such scenario the

Hon. Court should become the custodian of the case and

protect the fundamental right of Justice to both the

deceased brother of the Petitioner and petitioner himself.

GROUNDS

A) The said Charge Sheet is completely based on evidence

which was available with the C.B.I since 2012 and which

is reflected in its closure report, Exh. C herein, filed in

2014. This fact only establishes the allegations leveled by

the Petitioner herein against the C.B.I in W.P. No. 3544

of 2014. One cannot but conclude that the entire efforts

of the C.B.I. since after August 2014 are to thwart proper

 investigation and save the true culprits of the crime in

question.

B) As previously tried by the high ranks in the C.B.I. in

2014, the agency looks very keen to clear the names of

the IRB Infra C.M.D Mr. Virendra Mhaisker and other

two persons, viz., Jayant Dangre and Ajit Kulkarni,

related to IRB, who were arraigned as accused by the

C.B.I Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pune. This is evident from

the fact that the scheme of Investigation of the C.B.I-SU

II team does not mention any of the startling facts

revealed by the C.B.I A.CB, Pune in their Final Report.

C) As per submissions of the CBI in the Bombay High

Court, the reinvestigation was re-initiated based on some

new incriminating evidence/material that was found

during the raids on IRB Infra offices across Mumbai and

Pune in January 2015. It is startling to say the least that

the C.B.I has not made any efforts to unearth and collect

evidence which they allegedly found during their raids on

IRB Infra in January 2015. The entire emphasis of the

C.B.I, for the so called re-investigation, was that new

incriminating material/evidence was found during the

said raids. It will be pertinent to note that the C.B.I has

not divulged a single name of any of the officer[s] from

IRB Infra in reference to whom investigation was

conducted to justify their reason for re-investigation. The

fact that this so called “incriminating evidence” was

neither collected nor attempted to be collected is tale

telling fact that the integrity of the institution known as

 C.B.I is compromised and is at its lowest nadir. The C.B.I

has failed to bring on record any cogent or judicious

explanation for this enormous lapse on their part.

D) CBI has been very reluctant to disclose facts, as it seems

to have deliberately kept a lot of important facts from the

previous investigation unavailable for the Honorable

Judge to peruse.

E) The forensic evidence, which was mentioned to be

unacceptable in the Closure Report of the CBI in 2014 is

now mostly relied upon on in this charge sheet viz. The

Polygraph Tests and the Call Data Records. It is for the

CBI to explain as to how material, which was

unacceptable while filing the closure report, becomes the

basis of filing a charge sheet. This casts absolute doubt

on the integrity of CBI.

F) It will be pertinent to note that one of the charge sheeted

accused by the C.B.I, viz., Mr. B.R. Andhalkar was

subjected to a lie detector test. In the course of this test,

Mr. Andhalkar was not found to be innocent, and there

were deceptions in responses while recording answers to

the questions relating to his involvement in the murder

of late Mr. Satish Shetty. Evidence of Andhalkar being in

contact with Mr. Virendra Mhaisker, Mr. Jayant Dangre

and Mr. Ajit Kulkarni is available with the C.B.I. The said

record discloses that these Gentlemen were in constant

touch with each other since late Mr. Satish Shetty

initiated criminal proceedings through C.R. No.

152/2009 till he was hacked to death in the year 2010.

One fails to understand as to why a Police Inspector from

Rural Division, Pune would be in constant contact with

these people during this specific period. The C.B.I has

not bothered to question or interrogate these persons,

confronting them with their C.D.R. In this backdrop, the

arraigning of Mr. Andhalkar as an accused, only for the

purpose of botching up the investigation of murder is

preposterous and he ought to have been arraigned under

section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for the actual

crime of murder.
The C.B.I has also failed to take into account the fact

that Mr. Andhalkar called Late Mr. Satish Shetty on

22/11/2009 by using a number belonging to one Ganesh

Gaikwad and spoke with him for over 400 seconds. It will

not be superfluous to connect this call with the fact that

Late Mr. Satish Shetty sought protection by writing

letters to the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural on

24/11/2009 and 26/11/2009 (Exh.Letter). The fact that

Mr. Andhalkar was not investigating C.R. No. 152/2009

would also establish the fact that this call was made to

Late Mr. Satish Shetty to threaten him with his and his

family’s life. This also shows the involvement of Mr.

Andhalkar in the entire conspiracy of murder of Late

Satish Shetty, and that the C.B.I Charge Sheet seems

nothing but eyewash.

The CBI states that BR Andhalkar was also involved in

misdirecting of Cr. 152/2009 Land Scam probe against

IRB CMD and 12 others, which brings us to a very logical

conclusion that IRB officials were hand in glow with Mr.

 B.R Andhalkar from the beginning and thus if Mr. B.R

Andhalakar was trying to save anybody it has to be the

people related to IRB.

CBI Chargsheet observes, that as per the first IO,

Inspector Aphale of Talegaon police Station, within hours

of murder Mr. B.R Abdhalkar started a parallel probe

before even it was transferred to LCB on 14-2-2014, it

can be easily inferred that BR Andhalkar was pre-

informed of the crime and had already planned an alibi

to cover-up, thus his involvement was far before the

crime even was executed.

CBI Chargesheet also reveals, that the second IO of Pune

Rural Police in this case, Dy. S.P. Dilip Shinde, has said

he was preoccupied in some other work thus he could

not monitor the case and most of it was handled by Mr.

B.R Andhalkar, it would be really naïve to believe that a

senior officer even after knowing that his junior is doing

a wrong probe would sign all affidavits filed in the

Bombay High court and go to the extend to filing a

charge sheet in a bogus case without having any benefit,

that is why he too was made a accused by the Pune CBI

ACB Team.

G) A large team of police officials was assembled by the

State to investigate the murder of Satish Shetty which

was headed by Dy. S.P. Dilip Shinde and was supervised

by Pune Rural S.P. Pradeep Dighoakar , by no figment of

imagination can it be believed that only two of these

officers without any support of their superior officers

 would have been able to botch up a probe which was

monitored by the Honorable Bombay High Court.

H) Following facts which were presented in the 2014

reports, and which have now been conveniently brushed

under the carpet by the current team

a. Jayant Dangare offered Rs.2 crore to Late Satish

Shetty to stop his probe in the land scam of IRB.

( Statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C)

b. Jayant Dangare on refusal by Late Satish Shetty

warned to assault him. (Statement recorded u/s

164 Cr.P.C)
c. Ajit Kulkarni approached Late Satish Shetty to

convince him to stop probe through Late Satish

Shetty’s friend. (Statement recorded u/s 164

Cr.P.C)
d. IRB Infra through one of these vendor, and friend

of Late Satish Shetty, Mr. Ganesh Khandge

pressurized him to stop the probe.

e. A witness had overheard Mr. B.R Andhalkar and

S.P. Dighaukar having a spat over money in Satish

Shetty murder case.

f. The most glaring omission of the current CBI team

is the fact that call data records of Mr. B.R

Andhalkar, Jayant Dangare, Ajit Kulkarni and

Virendra Mhaiskar shows continuous conversation

between 15 October 2009 the day a FIR of the land

case was filed by Late Satish Shetty and 13 Jan

2010 when Late Satish Shetty was hacked to death

in Talegaon , indicating a nexus between all these

people .
The abovementioned facts and circumstances are glaring,

and require a very strong note to be taken by this

Hon’ble Court. Agencies such as the C.B.I are the last

ray of hope for a common man in his fight for justice,

and the facts and circumstances enumerated above

cannot and should not be brushed aside easily by such

agencies. The Petitioner, having no other door to knock

on but that of this Hon’ble Court, humbly submits that

sufficient cause is made out by him to pray for a

monitored investigation. This Hon’ble court being the

torch bearer of the rights of the common man, may

kindly look at this case with compassion and help the

Petitioner in his fight for justice. This prayer of the

Petitioner is not limited only to his fight for justice but

also important for the reputation of C.B.I.

PRAYER

a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for all the

records and proceedings of Sessions Case No.

____/____;

b. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition,

stay the proceedings of Sessions Case No. ____/____;

c. After hearing the Petitioner and perusing the records

and proceedings of Sessions Case No. ____/____, this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct further

investigation by the C.B.I. in the probe of murder of

Late Mr. Satish Shetty;

 d. The said further investigation of the said crime may

kindly be monitored by this Hon’ble Court;

e. Ad-interim and Interim Relief in terms of prayer (b) be

granted;

f. Any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and

proper.

For this act of kindness and justice the Petitioner shall

as in duty bound forever pray.

Place: Mumbai

Date: ___/09/2016

Petitioner

Advocate for the Petitioner

VERIFICATION
I, , the Petitioner, do hereby take oath and state on
solemn affirmation that what is stated in the paragraphs Nos.
is true to my own knowledge and what is
stated in the paragraph Nos. are based on legal
information, which I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at )
this day of September 2014 ) DEPONENT

Explained & Identified by me. Before me.

Advocate High Court.