Clean chit to top cop in Maval firing not arbitrary : HC

MUMBAI: Bombay High Court on Thursday declined to interfere with the State government's decision to let off with an oral warning the then superintendent (Pune rural) Sandeep Karnik, in the Maval firing incident of August 9, 2011.
The court said the government's action, on the basis of available record including an inquiry commission's report, is not arbitrary and that there is nothing to show that a woman died to firing of live bullets by Karnik.Karnik is currently deputy commissioner of police, zone II. Mumbai.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice C V Bhadang heard a petition filed by I G Khandelwal to implement recommendations of Justice M G (retd.) Gaikwad Commission.
Three farmers were killed and several injured on Mumbai-Pune Expressway when they were protesting against a scheme to divert water meant for 75 villages to Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.
The government informed HC that based on the Commission’s report, it will issue oral warning to Karnik for firing two plastic bullets at the dispersing crowd and initiate disciplinary proceedings against other three officers for firing live bullets.
Petitioner I G Khandelwal argued that Karnik had also filed two live bullets from a self-loading rifle and claimed Kantabai Thakar had died due to a bullet fired by him. He also said there is no finding by the Commission as to by which bullet Kantabai had died.
State's advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni countered that the Commission has held that after the mob dispersed, three other police officers fired live bullets but Karnik had fired two plastic bullets only. Also. that Karnik had fired two live bullets when" the mob was very much in action" and there is nothing on record to show anybody was injured due to it.
The bench said from the material available, including Commission's report, there is nothing on record to indicate that Kantabai lost her life due to the bullets fired by Karnik. Conceding, Khandelwal said he would indepedently pursue the same by adopting remedies including seeking CBI inquiry.
The bench also declined to accept the contention that the State government treated the other three police officers differently from Karnik. It said the distinction on their role is borne in the Commission's report and therefore the action of the government is not arbitrary.
The bench concluded that it is not necessary to issue any further direction and interfere with the disciplinary proceedings.