Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

The facts that emerge can be summed up from the Writ Petition and the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner. V.G. Patil who was the President of the Jalgaon District Congress Committee, was brutally murdered by two assailants in the early morning hours of 21st September 2005. The Petitioner is the widow of the deceased. The incident was witnessed by Mahendra P. Mahajan on whose statement the first information report, Crime No.242 of 2005 was registered at the Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. The investigation at the initial stage was conducted by N.S. Ghuge, Inspector of Police. Though the FIR was registered by the Zilla Peth Police Station, the investigation of the crime was transferred by the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon to the local Crime Branch on the very day, 21st September 2005. The investigation was conducted by the said Police Officer. While investigating the matter, he examined some witnesses; prepared a spot panchnama and inquest panchnama; obtained the cause of death certificate and recorded the statements of several witnesses including Jayant Patil who was the nephew of the deceased. After receiving the investigation papers, he claims to have carried out the investigation and to have recorded the statements of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that she suspected the involvement of one Suresh Patil, Dr.Ulhas Patil and Rajesh Kotwal. Raju Mali and Raju Sonawane were arrested on 30th September 2005. The investigation was transferred from the local Crime Branch to CID, Jalgaon, when the investigation by Mr. Ghuge ended. According to him, marshalling of the call records was not done till 30th September 2005.

2. The Petitioner had filed a Criminal Writ Petition, W.P.No.646 of 2006 before which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court by an order dated 23rd February 2007. In that Writ Petition, the Petitioner had expressed doubts about the genuineness and fairness of the investigation being conducted by the CID. During the pendency of that Petition, the Government took a decision to transfer the investigation of the offence to the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI"). In pursuance of this decision, a communication dated 17th March 2006 of the Principal Secretary (Special) Home was sent to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation. By a letter dated 1st June 2006, the Director of CBI stated that this was not a fit case where the CBI should conduct the investigation. The Division Bench in its order observed thus:

"10. ........... Considering the chequered history of the present case, the developments which have taken place after filing of the charge sheet, issues involved and the reference to alleged conspiracy by the influential political leaders of the region, in our opinion, the decision of the State Government that the investigation of this case should be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation is justified. Having regard to the importance of issues involved and the alleged complicity of the influential political leaders referred to in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the petition, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case where the investigation should be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation.

11. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C). Prayer clause (D) does not survive since the investigation is transferred to respondent No.7 Central Bureau of Investigation. Appropriate steps be taken by the concerned Authority for implementation of this order at the earliest."

3. The State CID had filed a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 22nd December 2005. In this charge sheet, only four persons were shown as assailants/accused: Raju Pundlik Mali (accused No.1), Raju Chintaman Sonawane, (accused No.2), Leeladhar Pundlik Narkhede, (accused No.3), and Damodar Lokhande, (accused No.4). On the basis of this charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Ca