Judgment :- 1. By mutual consent of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, the Wirt Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition seeking for the relief of direction to the Respondents to transfer the investigation in Cr. No. 257/2009 on the file of the 3rd Respondent-Police to CBI within the stipulated period. 3(a). The case of the Petitioner is that his son by name, Dhansekaran, was all of a sudden arrested and detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14, 1982 and branded as “Goonda” by the Detention Order passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvallur dated 16.04.2009 on the basis of the report of the Sponsoring Authority, viz., the Inspector of Police, Tirutani Police Station, Tiruvallur District. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he had committed various crimes and Complaints have been lodged against him. The Petitioner, challenging the said detention order passed against his son, filed a Petition in H.C.P. No. 757/2009 and this Court quashed the said detention order by its order dated 25.06.2009. (b) Thereafter, the Petitioner moved bail for his son and in five out of seven cases, he was granted statutory bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirutani. On 09.07.2007, while the son of the Petitioner was taken from the jail to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirutani for extension of remand, the Petitioner heard that during the time of journey to the Court, the policeman who escorted the Petitioner’s son and other accused, said to have shot his son and the son of the Petitioner died inside the police van. The Petitioner, on enquiry, came to know that his son was handcuffed and therefore, he could not even attempt to save his life. The other co-accused, viz., one Simon, is also an eyewitness to the occurrence of shooting while he was in the van along with the escorted party. The death of the Petitioner’s son has taken place while he was in the judicial custody. It was revealed subsequently that the Petitioner’s son was shot dead by one Murugan, a Police Constable. It is stated that the said Murugan suspected the Petitioner’s son to be the culprit of the murder of his mother and out of the vengeance, he had caused the death of the son of the Petitioner. It was revealed subsequently that the Petitioner’s son was shot dead by one Murugan, a Police Constable. It is stated that the said Murugan suspected the Petitioner’s son to be the culprit of the murder of his mother and out of the vengeance, he had caused the death of the son of the Petitioner. .(c) The Petitioner has given a Complaint on the same day. The Petitioner also filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.15009/2009 seeking for the relief of compensation for the custodial death of his son and the said Writ Petition has been admitted and the same is pending on the file of this Court. The petitioner reliably understand that the said Murugan, police Constable had been promised of all help and assistance from the other policemen of the District. Therefore, the Petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that the local Police may not investigate into the matter properly and in accordance with law. It is further submitted that there is no progress in the investigation in spite of the fact that the crime was registered in the year 2009 itself. Therefore, the Petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he may not get fair and unbiased investigation by the Respondent-Police and as such, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with the above said prayer. .4. Mr. N. Sudharsan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that this is a case of custodial death of the Petitioner’s son. It is contented that the Petitioner’s son has been shot dead by the Police constable while he was taken in the police van to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirutani for remand extension. It is contented that one Murugan, Police Constable shot dead the son of the Petitioner as the said Police suspected the Petitioner’s son to be the culprit of the murder of his mother. It is contended that in view of the admitted fact that the accused being a police constable, the Petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he may not get a fair and unbiased investigation by the Respondent Police. Therefore, it is contended that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent-Police in the event of transferring the investigation to CBI. 5. It is contended that in view of the admitted fact that the accused being a police constable, the Petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he may not get a fair and unbiased investigation by the Respondent Police. Therefore, it is contended that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent-Police in the event of transferring the investigation to CBI. 5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State of U.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 143. It is further submitted that till date, the investigation is not completed and the charge-sheet has not been filed by the Respondent-Police. It is submitted that the Petitioner also filed an affidavit to that effect dated 23.04.2010 before this Court today. 6. Per contra, Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate, would contend that the 3rd Respondent-Police is investigating into the matter properly and in accordance with law. It is contended that already a case was registered in Cr. No.257/2009 by the 3rd Respondent-Police and the investigation is in progress. It is submitted that the Inspector of Police, viz., the 3rd Respondent police has already taken prompt action and the witnesses have been examined and the materials were also collected against the accused in this case. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the accused, viz., Murugan, the Head Constable was placed under suspension by initiating necessary disciplinary action. It is further contended that the RDO report is awaited and also submitted that after completion of investigation, charge sheet would be filed expeditiously. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 8. This is a very unfortunate case wherein the Petitioner’s son has been done to death by a Police Constable while the Petitioner’s son was taken in a police van for the purpose of extension of remand by producing him before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirutani by shooting the Petitioner’s son. The Counter filed before this Court by the 3rd Respondent-Police would reveal that the case was already registered in Cr. No. 257/2009 against the accused, viz., Murugan, Police Constable and the investigation is pending. The Counter filed before this Court by the 3rd Respondent-Police would reveal that the case was already registered in Cr. No. 257/2009 against the accused, viz., Murugan, Police Constable and the investigation is pending. It is specifically stated in the counter that it is only the accused, who has shot the son of the Petitioner, viz., Dhanasekaran which resulted in the death of the said Dhanasekaran in the Police van itself. It is seen admittedly that till date, the investigation is not completed and the charge-sheet has not been filed. It is quite natural for the Petitioner to apprehend that he may not get fair and unbiased investigation, as the accused being the Police Constable. 9. It is seen that in the counter it is stated that the investigation is in progress. But, however considering the reasonable apprehension of the Petitioner, as stated above, that he may not get fair and unbiased investigation more particularly, the accused happened to be the Police Constable, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the 3rd Respondent-Police in the event of transferring the investigation to CBI without casting any aspersion on the State Police. .10. The Honourable Apex Court in R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State of U.P. and Others, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 143 has held as hereunder: .“2. We have examined the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the Petition and the events that have taken place after the so-called encounters. Whether the loss of lives was on account of a genuine or a fake encounter is a matter which has to be inquired into and investigated closely. We, however, refrain from making any observation in that behalf; we should, therefore, not be understood even remotely to be expressing any view thereon one ways or the other. We have perused the events that have taken place since the incidents but we are refraining from entering upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we think that since the accusations are directed against the local Police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility. However, faithfully the local Police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith and we do hope that it would complete the investigation at an early date so that those involved in the occurrences, one way or the other, may be brought to book. We direct accordingly. In so ordering we mean no reflection on the credibility of either the local police or the State Government. But we have been guided by the larger requirements of justice.” 11. A Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, 2010 (2) CTC 84 (SC): 2010 (2) MLJ (Cri.) 169 (SC) has held that the High Court has the power to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up investigation in respect of cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State. 12. The principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the decisions cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the accused is none else than the local police and as such, it is quite natural for the Petitioner to entertain reasonable apprehension that he may not get fair and unbiased investigation from the local police, viz., 3rd Respondent-Police herein. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, without intending any reflection of credibility and without casting any aspersion on the local police, viz., the State-Police, this Court is constrained to entrust the investigation to an independent agency, viz., the CBI, for the purpose of proper, fair and unbiased investigation. .13. Accordingly, the 3rd Respondent-Police shall hand over the entire case file and other records regarding Crime No.257/2009 pending on its file to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai. The Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai, on receipt of such records, shall get appropriate orders from the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, for the purpose of nominating a competent Inspector of Police, CBI, to take up the investigation into the above matter from the State police and to complete the same as expeditiously as possible. The Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai, on receipt of such records, shall get appropriate orders from the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, for the purpose of nominating a competent Inspector of Police, CBI, to take up the investigation into the above matter from the State police and to complete the same as expeditiously as possible. The Director, CBI, New Delhi, is hereby directed to instruct the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai, to nominate a competent Inspector of Police, CBI, to take up the investigation into the matter relating to Crime No.257/2009 on the file of the Third Respondent-Police. It is made clear that the State Police shall give all assistance and co-operation by providing infrastructure and other facilities to the CBI for effective investigation. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.