In the first matter, the Court rejected Fahim Ansari’s plea seeking a direction to the Maharashtra Police to issue him a mandatory Police Clearance Certificate. Ansari had argued that the certificate was necessary for him to earn a livelihood by operating an autorickshaw. The Court declined to grant any such relief, effectively upholding the authorities’ refusal to issue the certificate.
In a separate ruling on the same day, a division bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale granted bail to Sharad Salaskar, described as one of the convicts in the murder of rationalist activist Narendra Dabholkar. Salaskar had been convicted by a special court in 2024 and subsequently filed an appeal before the High Court, seeking interim bail until the final disposal of his appeal.
While allowing his release, the Court directed him to furnish a bail bond of 50,000 rupees. The bench also rejected the Central Bureau of Investigation’s request to stay the bail order for four weeks. Justice Gadkari observed that since the Court had already expressed doubts regarding the identification of Salaskar as the assailant, there was no justification to stay the order.
A detailed copy of the judgment is yet to be made available.
The case pertains to the murder of Narendra Dabholkar, who was shot dead during a morning walk in Pune on August 20, 2013. Dabholkar, who led the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, was widely known for his campaign against superstition and for promoting rationalism. The investigation, later taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation in 2014 following a Bombay High Court directive, identified Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar as the alleged perpetrators.
A special court judgment delivered on May 10, 2024, had convicted Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar under charges of murder and common intention. It had, however, acquitted other co-accused, including Dr. Virendra Tawade, Vikram Bhave, and advocate Sanjeev Punalekar, of charges related to murder, common intention, and criminal conspiracy. None of the accused were convicted under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or the Arms Act.
The trial in the case commenced in 2021, though the sessions case was instituted in 2016. The prosecution had argued that Dabholkar’s killing was part of a broader conspiracy aimed at silencing voices opposing superstition, while the defence denied all allegations.
Following the special court verdict, Dabholkar’s family, led by his daughter Mukta Dabholkar, filed an appeal in the High Court challenging the acquittal of three accused. Cross appeals were also filed by Kalaskar and Andure challenging their convictions. Salaskar, along with other accused, is currently in judicial custody in connection with the case.
Separately, Salaskar, along with co-accused Virendra Tawade and Amol Kale, had earlier been granted bail by the Kolhapur bench of the High Court in the Govind Pansare murder case in October 2025.
The latest rulings underscore the ongoing judicial scrutiny in two of Maharashtra’s most closely watched criminal cases, both involving allegations linked to targeted killings and long-standing legal battles over evidence, identification, and conspiracy.
About The Author
Comment List