CBI obtains Sharad Kalaskar’s custody

MUMBAI: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) obtained Sharad Kalaskar’s custody on Monday for his alleged role in rationalist Dr Narendra Dabholkar’s murder. Kalaskar is said to be one of the shooters who killed Dabholkar on August 20, 2013.

Along with him, three others – Vaibhav Raut, Sudhanva Gondhalkar and Shrikant Pangarkar – were also produced before the special court for Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act) as their custody with anti-terrorism squad (ATS) ended on Monday.

As ATS did not press for further custody of Raut and Gondhalkar, they were remanded in judicial custody.

While CBI got Kalaskar’s custody, Pangarkar’s police custody was extended till September 6. While seeking Pangarkar’s custody, chief public prosecutor Jaisingh Desai argued that the diary recovered from Amol Kale, one the accused in the Gauri Lankesh murder case, had a mention of Pangarkar’s name.

The prosecution claimed Pangarkar had exchanged certain messages and was in touch with Kale from his regular mobile number.

The prosecution further informed the court that Pangarkar was using two mobile numbers, of which one was not on his name. Call data records show that he was in touch with Kale and other co-accused for whom he had arranged training in Jalna and provided arms and ammunition.

Desai told the court that CBI needed Kalaskar’s custody to take the probe further.

The ATS claimed that almost a month before Lankesh’s murder, Pangarkar was in Karnataka. As per the entries in his bank account, on August 14, last year, Pangarkar had withdrawn

money from an ATM in the same state, the ATS claimed. The agency suspects that he could have given the money to Kale. However, the agency claimed that it still needs to investigate into all these aspects.

While arguing further, the prosecutor raised the point that Pangarkar provided a bike to Raut using bogus registration number.

Defence counsel Sanjeev Punalekar objected to ATS’ demand for extension of Pangarkar’s custody on the ground that there is no substantial progress in the investigation. He argued the agency did not reveal the cost of the explosive. It was argued that the agency on the day of Pangarkar’s arrest claimed his alleged role in financing the module but has yet not obtained bank statements.

The court however, rejected the defence’s contention.