Padamsinh Patil, 7 Others Acquitted in Pavanraje Nimbalkar Murder Case

A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Mumbai on Saturday, June 20, 2026, acquitted former Maharashtra minister Padamsinh Patil and seven other individuals in the high-profile 2006 murder case of Congress leader Pavanraje Nimbalkar and his driver, Samad Kazi. The verdict, delivered by Special CBI Judge Satyanarayan R. Navandar, marked the culmination of a protracted 15-year trial, with the court observing that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt. Pavanraje Nimbalkar and his driver, Samad Kazi, were brutally shot dead on June 3, 2006, near Kalamboli in Navi Mumbai while they were en route from Mumbai to Osmanabad (now Dharashiv). The initial investigation was handled by the local police, but dissatisfaction with its progress led Nimbalkar's wife, Anandibai, to petition the Bombay High Court. In October 2008, the High Court transferred the investigation to the CBI. Padamsinh Patil, the prime accused in the case, is a prominent political figure in Maharashtra. He is a former Maharashtra Home Minister, a former Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) Member of Parliament, and notably, the brother of Maharashtra's Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar. He was also a cousin of the deceased Pavanraje Nimbalkar. The CBI had alleged that Patil orchestrated a contract killing, reportedly for an amount between ₹30 lakh and ₹35 lakh, driven by intense political and business rivalry. The alleged motive centered on Nimbalkar's growing political influence in Osmanabad district and his opposition to the management of the Terna Sugar Factory, which supposedly threatened Patil's dominance. Patil was arrested in June 2009 after the CBI took over the case and was later granted bail in September of the same year. The trial commenced in July 2011 and saw the examination of 128 witnesses over its extensive duration. A significant challenge for the prosecution was the fact that 29 of these witnesses turned hostile during the proceedings. The Supreme Court had also transferred the case from Alibaug to Mumbai in November 2012 following allegations of undue influence being exerted by Patil over the proceedings. A crucial aspect of the CBI's case hinged on the testimony of an accused-turned-approver, Parasmal Jain. Jain was alleged to have initially accepted the contract to arrange the killing and later sought a pardon to testify against the other accused. However, the special CBI court found his testimony to be unreliable, contradictory, and highly suspicious. The court noted that Jain had reportedly changed his version repeatedly during the trial and that his initial statement in 2009 was allegedly made under torture during illegal custody. The judge highlighted discrepancies such as Jain's financial status, questioning how he could have committed the murder for money while also possessing significant assets, and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the vehicle used in the crime or a pre-murder phone call by Jain to Nimbalkar. Judge Navandar concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient, credible evidence to link the accused with the planning, execution, financing, or aftermath of the murder. The court's ruling emphasized that without a clear and unbroken chain of circumstances, the allegations could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The verdict has drawn strong reactions. Om Raje Nimbalkar, son of the deceased Pavanraje Nimbalkar and a Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) Member of Parliament, expressed profound disappointment. He stated that his family had fought for justice for two decades and questioned who truly killed his father if all accused were acquitted. Both Om Raje Nimbalkar and the CBI have indicated their intention to challenge the acquittal in the Bombay High Court, signaling that the legal battle is far from over. The case underscores the complexities and challenges of high-profile political murder investigations and trials in India, particularly when key witnesses recant or their testimonies are found unreliable. Padamsinh Patil, who is 86 years old, was brought to court in an ambulance for the verdict.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest