A high-profile murder case had stirred Maharashtra two decades ago. At the heart of it was the political rivalry between two cousins. The Sessions Court in Mumbai will deliver its verdict in the Pawanraje Nimbalkar murder case on Saturday (June 20, 2026).

The accused is former Maharashtra Minister Padmasinh Patil, a heavyweight leader and the brother of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar. Pawanraje Nimbalkar’s son, Omraje Nimbalkar, is a Shiv Sena UBT MP on his way out of the party. He has said that his family has fought for justice for 20 years.

The trial, which started in 2011, lasted for 15 years. The court examined 160 witnesses in that period.

Verdict deferred to June 20

On Monday (June 15, 2026), the court had said that additional time was required to deliver the verdict, leading to a postponement. The court had previously ordered the accused to appear in person for the June 16 hearing. All nine accused complied with the directive. The verification of their presence was completed, and the judge recorded their attendance. The hearing lasted for a duration that court officials described as brief. The next date of hearing was communicated to all parties present.

The verdict was initially expected on May 14. The hearing on that date was deferred as the accused were not present in the court. The court subsequently directed their appearance for June 16. The prosecution and the defence counsel were present on both occasions.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for June 20. The accused has been directed to remain present on that date. The prosecution and the defence counsel will be present to receive the verdict. The family members of the deceased are expected to be present in the court. The case has been pending for two decades. The legal process has involved multiple hearings and procedural steps. The parties involved have been informed of the new date.

Background of the case

Pawanraje Nimbalkar, a Congress leader from Maharashtra, arrived in Mumbai on June 3, 2006. He had completed his work in the city and proceeded towards Pune. He was scheduled to meet an individual in Kalamboli regarding a land transaction in Barshi. Pawanraje Nimbalkar travelled in a white car. The CBI charge sheet states that he reached the Char Rasta intersection in Kalamboli.

According to the charge sheet, the assailants were positioned at the location. They overtook his vehicle and instructed the driver to stop. Pawanraje Nimbalkar was asleep in the vehicle at that time. The assailants approached the car and engaged the occupants in conversation under the pretext of making inquiries. The driver woke Pawanraje Nimbalkar and lowered the window. The shooters then allegedly fired at him. Pawanraje Nimbalkar sustained injuries. The driver, Samad Kazi, was also wounded in the incident.

The assailants fled in their vehicle. They discarded the firearm and other weapons at a distance from the site. The vehicle used by the assailants was abandoned in Belavali village, Panvel. The Mumbai police registered a case and initiated an investigation. The investigation was later transferred to the CBI.

Conspiracy and CBI charges

The CBI took over the investigation from the Mumbai police. The charge sheet filed by the CBI in court details the circumstances surrounding the murder. The charge sheet states that Padamsinh Patil, Satish Mandade, and Mohan Shukla allegedly conspired to murder Pawanraje Nimbalkar in 2005. The CBI has alleged that Pawanraje Nimbalkar had become a threat to Padamsinh Patil’s political career and standing.

Political observers have noted that the rivalry between Padamsinh Patil and Pawanraje Nimbalkar was linked to allegations of financial irregularities at the Terna Sugar Factory. The differences between the two leaders reached a point that drew the attention of the CBI during its investigation.

The charge sheet further states that in January 2005, Parasmal Jain met Mohan Shukla to seek financial assistance. Shukla informed Jain about the political rivalry between Padamsinh Patil and Pawanraje Nimbalkar. Shukla directed Jain to meet Satish Mandade of Latur. Mandade allegedly took Jain to Padamsinh Patil’s residence, where the contract for the killing was allegedly assigned. Jain was also informed that social activist Anna Hazare was to be targeted subsequently. The CBI has alleged that Padamsinh Patil paid a contract amount of ₹35 lakh for the murder.

Arrest and bail of Padamsinh Patil

Padamsinh Patil was arrested in June 2009 in connection with the case. At the time, he was the Member of Parliament for Osmanabad, representing the Nationalist Congress Party. Patil had served as the State Home Minister before his arrest. He was released on bail after his arrest in 2009. The terms of his bail have been complied with, and he has appeared in court as and when directed. The other accused in the case has also been granted bail during the trial.

Omraje Nimbalkar’s response

Omraje Nimbalkar, the deceased’s son and a political figure, addressed the media following the hearing. “I have faith in the Indian judicial system. We have pursued this case for 20 years on the strength of that faith,” he said. “The killing was allegedly a conspiracy to eliminate a political opponent. My demand is that the guilty receive the death sentence,” he added.

Mr. Omraje Nimbalkar stated that he entered politics due to his father’s murder. He said he was fighting the legal battle with public support. He expressed his expectation that the court would deliver a judgment that reflects the evidence presented. He reiterated his trust in the judicial process and stated that the family would accept the court’s decision.

Trial proceedings and witnesses

The trial for the Pawanraje Nimbalkar murder case has been in progress at the Sessions Court in Mumbai since its commencement in 2011. The case includes approximately 160 witnesses. The prosecution has examined these witnesses over the course of the trial. The defence has cross-examined the witnesses. The arguments from both sides have been completed. The court has heard the final submissions. The judge has now indicated that the judgment requires additional time for preparation.