Mitali Palnitkar
Published On: February 11, 2022 at 13:41 IST
A reply was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before the Bombay High Court opposing the Bail Application of Virendra Tawade, the prime Accused in Narendra Dabholkar Murder Case, stating that enlarging Tawade on Bail was a threat to the society.
The CBI stated that the heinous Crime was committed on a public road in daylight which gave a feeling of absolute insecurity to the public. The act threatened the security of the people and the nation, and had a terrorizing effect on the society.
The other grounds raised in the Affidavit by CBI were that the Murder of Dabholkar was well-planned which attracted the Provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 for creating fear and terror in the minds of people. Also, the three earlier Bail Applications filed by Tawade were rejected.
It was mentioned that Tawade had personal animosity with Dabholkar since 2002 as he had conspired to vandalize a programme in which Dabholkar was a guest speaker. In 2007, he was instructed to concentrate on Dabholkar’s Andhshraddha Nirmulan Bill (Abolition of Superstitious Practices Bill).
It was mentioned in the Affidavit that the Charges were framed by the Sessions Court against all Accused persons including Tawade.
Dabholkar was the founder of Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (MANS), which works towards eradication of superstitious activities. In 2013, he was shot dead during a morning walk by two assailants in Pune.
Tawade was Arrested by the CBI and was Charged with Offences under Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was also Charged with provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and Offences under Section 16 (Terrorist Act) of UAPA.
Tawade approached the Court with a third Bail Application after filing two Chargesheets and observing the delay in starting the Trial. However, his Bail Application was rejected in September 2020. Tawade was aggrieved by the Order and filed an Appeal in the High Court through Advocate Virendra Ichalkaranjikar.
Tawade contended that the Trial Court made an error in holding that he had been Convicted as a Co-Conspirator in a bomb blast case earlier. He also claimed that the Special Court made an error in holding that there were no changes in the circumstances despite filing the third Bail Application two years after the previous one.
