Nine years on, the Maharashtra CID is still probing a complaint filed by social activist Anna Hazare against former state minister...

Nine years on, the Maharashtra CID is still probing a complaint filed by social activist Anna Hazare against former state  minister Padamsinh Patil for allegedly conspiring to kill him, according to an RTI query.Hazare had lodged the complaint in September 2009 against Patil and four others for allegedly giving 'supari' (contract) to one Parasmal Jain to kill the social activist.Patil was arrested in the case but later released on bail by a court.

The Crime Investigation Department (CID), which later took over the case from Parner police station in Ahmednagar district, is yet to file a charge sheet in the case, the Right to Information (RTI) query has revealed.Padamsinh Patil is already facing trial for allegedly hatching the conspiracy and killing Congress leader Pawanraje Nimbalkar on June 3, 2006 at Kalamboli in Navi Mumbai due to political rivalry.

Anna Hazare

Parasmal Jain, who had allegedly shot at Pawanraje Nimbalkar, in his statement earlier to a magistrate under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), claimed that Patil paid him Rs 30 lakh for killing Nimbalkar and Hazare.Jain also stated that he had refused to take money to kill Hazare.Pawanraje Nimbalkar's son Jairaje Nimbalkar recently filed the RTI query seeking status of the case lodged by Hazare.

In reply to the query, CID's Additional Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad region, C J Kamble informed Jairaje Nimbalkar on June 8 that the "investigation is still on" and the "charge sheet has not been filed till date".Earlier this month, Pawanraje Nimbalkar's wife Anandidevi moved the Bombay High Court challenging a sessions court order refusing permission to the CBI to examine Hazare as a prosecution witness in connection with her husband's killing.

Pawanraje Nimbalkar

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is the prosecuting agency in the Pawanraje Nimbalkar murder case, had said that Hazare was an important witness in the case and could help establish the motive behind the offence.The high court had posted the petition for hearing on June 27 and directed the trial court to defer the recording of final statements of the accused persons till then.