Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 262 (CAL)

Pratim Kumar Singha Ray v. UNION OF INDIA

2013-05-13

ARUN MISHRA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2013
Judgment :- Joymalya Bagchi, J. The petitioner being a practicing lawyer has taken out the instant public interest litigation, inter alia, praying that the investigation relating to the custodial death of one Sk. Nasiruddin at Dhaniakhali police station be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation. Prayers have also been made for exhumation of the body of the victim and for holding of fresh inquest/post-mortem by an expert of Forensic Science of any medical college. Prayer has also been made for monetary compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Nasiruddin. It has been averred in the petition that on 18th January, 2013 at about 21 hours Nasiruddin was taken into custody by police personnel attached to Dhaniakhali police station. It has been alleged in the petition that Nasiruddin was a member of All India Trinamool Congress Party and had internecine fights with the local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra. It is alleged that out of such political rivalry Nasiruddin was threatened by henchmen of the local MLA and on 26th August, 2013 in the night the local MLA along with her supporters had forcefully entered the house of Nasiruddin and had assaulted his family members and threatened them with dire consequences. This fact was reported to the Superintendent of Hooghly and the local police authorities. It is further alleged that a false case being Dhaniakhali P.S. Case No. 107 of 2012 under Sections 341, 325,326, 308, 379, 407, 506 and 34 I.P.C. was registered against Nasiruddin. Nasiruddin was enlarged on bail in connection with the said case. Thereafter, it is alleged that on 18th January, 2013 while Nasiruddinwas travelling in his mini truck 407, the police personnel attached to Dhaniakhali police station illegally detained him and brought him to the police station where he was mercilessly assaulted and as a result of such assault he succumbed to his injuries. It is alleged that the police personnel had acted at the behest of the aforesaid local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra. With regard to the aforesaid incident, the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint on 19th January, 2013 with the Officer-in-Charge, Dhaniakhali police station alleging that Nasiruddin had been brutally assaulted in police custody and had been killed. It is alleged that the police personnel had acted at the behest of the aforesaid local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra. With regard to the aforesaid incident, the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint on 19th January, 2013 with the Officer-in-Charge, Dhaniakhali police station alleging that Nasiruddin had been brutally assaulted in police custody and had been killed. Subsequently, on 20th January, 2013 the wife of the deceased made a complaint to the Hon’ble Governor, State of West Bengal, alleging that the investigation in the case was not conducted in a proper manner and that the police authorities were seeking to cover up the incident by floating a canard that Nasiruddin died due to a heart attack. In the said letter, the wife of the victim alleged that the death of her husband was a result of a factional feud with the local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra who was inimical towards her husband. She therefore prayed for an investigation by CBI. The investigation in the instant case was conducted by the Crime Investigation Department, West Bengal. Hence, on 27.02.2013 this Court directed the Crime Investigation Department to give a date-wise report regarding such investigation. Such report has been filed before us by Pradip Dasgupta, Controlling Officer, CID, West Bengal. CDs have also been submitted by CID showing the CCTV footage of the police station. Affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent no. 6, Superintendent of Police, Hooghly and on behalf of respondent no. 8 by Special Superintendent of Police attached to Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no. 6 it has been stated that the investigation into the case has been taken up by CID, West Bengal since 1 st February, 2013 and that they have been conducting the investigation in a diligent manner. It has further been stated that on 18th January, 2013 at 21.00 hours the victim had been arrested by Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sanat Karmakar and Constable 2414 Amit Dey at Dhaniakhali police station as he was obstructing to vehicular traffic in a drunken state and refused to divulge his name. It has further been stated that on 18th January, 2013 at 21.00 hours the victim had been arrested by Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sanat Karmakar and Constable 2414 Amit Dey at Dhaniakhali police station as he was obstructing to vehicular traffic in a drunken state and refused to divulge his name. It was claimed that the arrest was conducted in terms of Section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 290 I.P.C. It has also been averred in the said affidavit that Nasiruddin was detained at the police station and at about 23.20 hours he wanted to go to the toilet and was taken to police station barrack for such purpose as the toilet inside the lock up was unusable. It is alleged that he fell inside the toilet and became unconscious. He was declared dead when he was brought to Dhanikhali Rural Hospital. Unnatural death case was registered at Dhaniakhali police station being Case No. 08/13 dated 19.01.2013. It has been denied that Kazi Nasiruddin was mercilessly beaten by police personnel in the police lock up. It has further been stated that with regard to death of Nasiruddin, the written complaint of his wife Manaza Bibi was treated as first information report and Dhaniakhali police case 8/13 dated 19.01.2013 under Sections 379/304 I.P.C. has been started which has presently been investigated by CID, West Bengal. It has been claimed that magisterial inquiry and the post mortem report was conducted under proper videography as per the Guidelines of National Human Rights Commission. Local agitation occurred on 19.01.2013 at Dhaniakhali police station over the death of Nasiruddin when unruly mob of about 304 – 400 ransacked the police station, damaged police vehicles and other government properties. Dhaniakhali police station case 8/13 dated 19.01.2013 under Sections 341, 325,326, 308, 379, 407, 506 I.P.C. read with 34 PDPP Act was started over such an incident. It has been denied that local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra or her associates had conspired with police authorities in causing death of Nasiruddin in police custody. It is stated that in the course of investigation, three police personnel, namely, ASI Sanat Karmakar Biswas, Constable Amit Dey, Constable Somnath Chatterjee have been arrested. It has been averred that investigation has progressed with expedition in accordance with law and no case to hand over the investigation to CBI or to any other agency has been made out. It is stated that in the course of investigation, three police personnel, namely, ASI Sanat Karmakar Biswas, Constable Amit Dey, Constable Somnath Chatterjee have been arrested. It has been averred that investigation has progressed with expedition in accordance with law and no case to hand over the investigation to CBI or to any other agency has been made out. In affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent no. 8, it has been averred that investigation at Dhaniakhali police station case 8/13 dated 19.01.2013 over the death of Nasiruddin has been taken over by CID, West Bengal vide control order No. 154/CS dated 24.01.2013.The investigation in the instant case has been taken over by Subimal Biswas, Sub-Inspector of Police, Hooghly, DDI and was supervised by Pradip Dasgupta, DDI, Hooghly. Other superior officers upto the rank of Additional Director General of Police, CID, West Bengal are also supervising the investigation. In the course of investigation, witnesses including police officers who were present at the time of arrest of the victim have been examined, video footage of CCTV captured by cameras fixed within the police station were seized. ASI Sanat Kumar Biswas, Constable Amit Dey, Constable Somnath Chatterjee have been arrested as minor scuffling took place at the time of arrest and the victim was slapped at the police station. They have been thoroughly interrogated. There is no bias in the matter of investigation. It was averred that CID, West Bengal is a specialized investigation agency having no connection with any district police unit. It was denied that Smt. Ashima Patra had in any manner tried to influence the investigation or approach the officers attached to the investigation. No material impeaching credibility of the investigation process had been adduced by the petitioner and therefore relief for transferring of investigation to any other independent agency must be rejected. It has been averred that although allegations have been made against Smt. Ashima Patra, she has not been made a party respondent in the petition. A day-to-day investigation report conducted by CID, West Bengal signed by Controlling Officer, Pradip Dasgupta, DDI, Hooghly, has also been furnished before this Court. Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner annexing the arrest memo of the victim. A day-to-day investigation report conducted by CID, West Bengal signed by Controlling Officer, Pradip Dasgupta, DDI, Hooghly, has also been furnished before this Court. Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner annexing the arrest memo of the victim. Shri. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the materials on record clearly show that the police personnel attached to Dhaniakhali police station had subjected the victim to murderous assault in custody resulting in his death. The involvement of local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that there was previous animosity between herself and the victim Nasiruddin and that the investigation was not being conducted in a free, fair and impartial manner and efforts are being taken to shield powerful persons involved in the incident. He prayed for transferring of the investigation to CBI in the instant case. Shri. Bimal Chatterjee, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that investigation was being done in a free, fair and impartial manner and that the local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra had also been interrogated. He submitted that no case had been made out for transferring of investigation to CBI. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner was arrested by police personnel of Dhaniakhali police station on 18.01.2013 at 21.00 hours from Madanmohan Tala, P.S. Dhaniakhali, District – Hooghly. The offence for which he was booked was under Section 290 I.P.C. which is a bailable one. His arrest was claimed to be made purportedly under Section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that he did not disclose his name. The arrest memo was signed by one person, namely, Md. Musum Asiz Mondal, who is admittedly neither is a relation nor next to friend of the arrestee. The arrest memo stated that the arrestee had no visible injury on his body except one abrasion mark on his right check. After being so arrested, he was taken to Dhaniakhali police station where he was detained. In Course of his detention in such custody, he expired. The final opinion regarding the cause of death of Nasiruddin was “head injury, ante mortem in nature” (serial no. 44 of the report on day-to-day investigation). The post mortem report of the victim was also showed marks of injury on his person. In Course of his detention in such custody, he expired. The final opinion regarding the cause of death of Nasiruddin was “head injury, ante mortem in nature” (serial no. 44 of the report on day-to-day investigation). The post mortem report of the victim was also showed marks of injury on his person. Arrest and detention of the victim on the purported ground that he did not divulge his name appears to be a wanton and blatant abuse of power to arrest on the part of the police personnel attached to Dhaniakhali police station. In Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) SCC (Cri) 1172 the Apex Court deprecating whimsical exercise of power of arrest by police personnel observed as follows:- “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person.” We hardly find any justification for the police personnel in depriving the liberty of Nasiruddin in the facts of the instant case. It would need an extremely credulous person to accept such an absurd version that a well known businessman residing within the area of the police station was arrested since his identity could not be ascertained. It was therefore incumbent on the investigating agency to probe into the real reason of his arrest rather than accept the ipse dixit of the police version. In D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) SCC (Cri.) 92 the Apex Court, inter alia, laid down the guidelines which were required to be mandatorily followed in all cases of arrest and detention as preventive measures as follows :- “35. In D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) SCC (Cri.) 92 the Apex Court, inter alia, laid down the guidelines which were required to be mandatorily followed in all cases of arrest and detention as preventive measures as follows :- “35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures : (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the Stare or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.” Clause 3 of the aforesaid guidelines provides that an arrested person shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interested in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. Clause 5 states that arrested person must be made aware of such right to have someone informed about his arrest or detention immediately upon his arrest. Clause 5 states that arrested person must be made aware of such right to have someone informed about his arrest or detention immediately upon his arrest. Clause 6 provides that an entry must be made in the General Diary at the place of the detention disclosing the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of such arrest. None of the aforesaid mandatory requirements of law were followed in the matter of arrest and detention of the victim Nasiruddin in respect of a bailable offence. The plea of non-disclosure of name of the arrestee appears to be a facile excuse for his detention in police custody when he was entitled to be released on bail as of right in respect of a bailable offence. The power of arrest is one thing and to exercise the same in an arbitrary, capricious manner is entirely different. In the instant case it appears that the police personnel of Dhaniakhali police station had intentionally deprived the liberty of the victim Nasiruddin by detaining him in police custody on a patently unconvincing reason that he did not disclose his identity. Or was there a more sinister motive behind the same? The investigating tram appears to have completely glossed over the necessity of an intensive probe as to this aspect of the case resulting in custodial death of Nasiruddin. Furthermore, Nasiruddin appears to have been detained behind the back of his relations. No effort was made to intimate the relations relating to his arrest and detention in compliance with the mandatory requirements as engrafted by the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu (Supra). The arrest and detention of Nasiruddin in police custody at Dhaniakhali police station appears to be under most suspicious circumstances based on flimsy grounds, untenable in law and grossly unjustified and arbitrary in the facts of the case. No investigation has been done by CID, West Bengal with regard to the justification and necessity of arrest of Nasiruddin and the breach of duty in not informing his relations in respect thereof and keeping the same under wraps till his custodial death. Soon after his arrest it appears that Nasiruddin suffered an unnatural death in police custody. The opinion of the medical personnel is that such death was due to “head injury, ante mortem in nature”. Post mortem report reveals marks of injury on his person. Soon after his arrest it appears that Nasiruddin suffered an unnatural death in police custody. The opinion of the medical personnel is that such death was due to “head injury, ante mortem in nature”. Post mortem report reveals marks of injury on his person. The arrest memo however shows that he had no visible mark of injury at the time of arrest. It, therefore, appears that Nasiruddin suffered unnatural death due to head injury and other injuries while he was in police custody. No explanation is forthcoming from the police personnel attached to Dhaniakhali police station as to how Nasiruddin suffered such injury. During his interrogation on 09.02.2013, the Officer-in-charge, Barun Ghosh made an exculpatory statement. He claimed that the victim was only slapped by one of the police personnel and was not subjected to custodial violence. He, for reasons best known to him, disclose the telephonic conversation with the local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra, at the time of arrest or immediately after the custodial death of Nasiruddin. It is trite law that custodial violence occurs within precincts of a police station or when a death occurs in police custody and there are marks of injury on the victim, it is upon the police personnel to explain as to the circumstances in which the detenu died. It was therefore was incumbent on the Officer-in-Charge of the police station who was not only in over all control but was present at the time of the detention of the arrestee to explain away the cause of his death. The purported explanation given by the Officer-in-Charge, hides more than what it reveals. It is not clear contradiction to the medical evidence which states the cause of death was “head injury, ante mortem in nature”. Slapping a victim cannot cause a fatal head injury nor can it explain away the marks of injury as evidenced in the post mortem report. This gives rise to a strong suspension as to the involvement of the Officer-in-Charge in the alleged crime. Sadly enough, the investigating agency appears to have completely abrogated its responsibility to investigate the crime from this angle and has proceeded on a pre-conceived exonerative stance so far as the Officer-in- Charge of the police station is concerned. Next comes the role of the local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra. Sadly enough, the investigating agency appears to have completely abrogated its responsibility to investigate the crime from this angle and has proceeded on a pre-conceived exonerative stance so far as the Officer-in- Charge of the police station is concerned. Next comes the role of the local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra. The Officer-in- Charge has not made any reference with regard to having received any phone call from the local MLA. At about the same time when Nasiruddin was arrested at Madanmohan Tala it appears that local MLA had a telephonic conversation with the Officer-in-Charge of Dhaniakhali police station. She claims that such a conversation was relating to a family dispute of her neighbor. No material has been collected in the course of investigation relating to such family dispute. CID has not made any endeavour to investigate the real reason for such phone call but has conveniently accepted the legislator’s innocuous version. Soon after the death of Nasiruddin the local MLA again contacted the Officer-in-Charge over her mobile phone. These telephonic exchanges between the Officer-in-Charge of Dhaniakhali police station and the local MLA at the time of arrest and after the custodial death of Nasiruddin in the backdrop of the inimical relation between the said MLA and Nasiruddin assumes grave importance in the instant case and hints at a larger conspiracy in the matter of custodial death of the victim. Apart from interrogating the local MLA only once, no steps appears to have been taken by the investigating agency to unravel this conspiracy angle in the alleged crime. The entire investigation conducted by the State investigating agency appears to be a desperate effort in damage control so as to ensure that no embarrassment is caused to the higher police functionary or the local MLA and the machinery of investigation is utilized to “justify than to jeopardize” the pre-conceived exonerative notion of their complicity in the matter. Unable to deny that there has been a custodial death at Dhaniakhali police station, the agency has sought to restrict its investigation only to the role played by the subordinate police personnel attached to Dhaniakhali police station, namely, ASI Sanat Karmakar Biswas, Constable Amit Dey, Constable Somnath Chatterjee. The role of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station in the matter and that of the local MLA has not been effectively investigated at all. The role of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station in the matter and that of the local MLA has not been effectively investigated at all. On the other hand, investigation has been directed to justify their lack of involvement in the matter. All tell tale signs of their complicity are ignored or glossed over. Fact that the Officer-in- Charge had not revealed the true state of affairs relating to the cause of death of the victim in police custody or suppression of his conversation with the MLA was not paid any serious heed and he was not subjected to any further interrogation during investigation. No serious effort appears to have been taken by the investigating agency to unravel the real reason for the telephonic conversation between the aforesaid Officer-in-Charge and the local MLA during the arrest or after the custodial death of the victim. Although there are materials galore as discussed hereinabove which gives rise to a strong suspension as to the involvement of the Officer-in-Charge, Dhaniakhali police station and the local MLA, no steps have been taken during investigation to unravel their role in the alleged crime in a free, fair and impartial manner. Fair investigation is a fundamental right of every individual. Criminal justice system is based on bulwark of a fair and impartial investigation at the behest of the investigating agency. In the event, there is an infraction of such basic duty by the State it results in complete eclipse of rule of law and a denial of access to justice and equality before the law to a victim and his family members in the matter of seeking justice and redressal against crime in society. It assumes more gruesome dimension where the alleged perpetrators of crime are “men in uniform” and the State connives to such gross infraction of rule of law by failing to ensure an effective and impartial investigation. The sordid facts in the instant case reveal that the investigating agency has been paralyzed due to the involvement of superior police officer and politician in the alleged incident. It has sought to restrict its investigation only to the lower minions of the police force and has done mere lip service to the cause of fair investigation where it was required to investigate the conspiracy involving the higher ups in the matter. It has sought to restrict its investigation only to the lower minions of the police force and has done mere lip service to the cause of fair investigation where it was required to investigate the conspiracy involving the higher ups in the matter. Such dereliction of duty to fairly investigate a crime is a brutal denial of the fundamental right to access to justice and equality before law to the family members of the deceased whose relation has suffered an untimely death due to custodial violence. The State investigating agency has failed to conduct the investigation in a fair and impartial manner and has abrogated and derelicted its basic sovereign duty to investigate the crime in the following respects : - (a) The real justification and necessity of arrest of the victim on 18.01.2013 by the police personnel of Dhanikhali police station from Madanmohan Tala has not been investigated at all. The facile and apparently absurd explanation that the arrest was effected as the victim did not disclose his identity has been accepted by the CID as gospel truth. No investigation has been made as to the breach of duty of the police personnel attached to Dhaniakhali P.S. in complying with the mandatory directives laid down in D.K. Basu (Supra) in the matter of informing the relations of the arrestee as to the facture of his arrest and keeping the same under wraps till his custodial death. (b) First information report with regard to the death of the victim was registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) (i.e. murder) instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code clearly betraying a compassionate approach of the investigating agency towards the accused persons who are brothers in uniform. CID has also not made any effort to implicate the accused persons by adding the aforesaid graver offence in the cause of its investigation of the crime. (c) The explanation of Officer-in-Charge of Dhaniakhali police station with regard to manner of treatment of the victim in police custody is wholly contradicted by the post mortem report and the final opinion as to the cause of death. Post mortem report reveals marks of injury on the body of the deceased whereas arrest memo states that he had no visible marks of injury on his person at the time of his arrest. Post mortem report reveals marks of injury on the body of the deceased whereas arrest memo states that he had no visible marks of injury on his person at the time of his arrest. Final opinion as to the cause of death is due to “head injury and ante mortem in nature”. The explanation of the Officer-in-Charge that the victim was only slapped. Such explanation is therefore wholly unbelievable in the face of such medical opinion. This give rise to a strong suspicion as to his role in the alleged crime. In spite of that, no investigation by way of further interrogation of the Officer-in-Charge or otherwise was undertaken by the CID in this regard. The effort of the Officer-in-Charge is to obfuscate the actual incident and to mislead the investigating agency was tamely accepted by the latter and no steps have been taken by the investigating agency to thwart the same. (d) No investigation relating to the previous animosity between the local MLA Smt. Ashima Patra and the victim has been made by CID. At the time of the apparently frivolous arrest of the victim, Smt. Patra had telephoned the Officer-in-Charge of Dhaniakhali police station. Though her innocuous explanation that such telephonic exchange was in respect of a dispute relating to a neighbour is not borne out on contemporous materials, CID refrained from investigation the real motive for the said telephonic conversation at such a crucial juncture. (e) No investigation as to the circumstances and/or reason for the second telephonic exchange between the Officer-in-Charge and the local MLA immediately after the custodial death of the victim has been made by the CID. The latter has completely shut its eyes to the conspiracy angle in this case involving the Officer-in-Charge and the local MLA particularly in the light of the allegations of previous enmity and the telephonic exchanges between themselves in the course of the alleged incident. (f) Furthermore, the statement of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station recorded by CID on 09.02.2013 is completely silent as to the aforesaid telephonic exchanges. Such suppression on the part of the Officer-in-Charge makes it apparent that he did not reveal the whole truth with regard to the incident. (f) Furthermore, the statement of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station recorded by CID on 09.02.2013 is completely silent as to the aforesaid telephonic exchanges. Such suppression on the part of the Officer-in-Charge makes it apparent that he did not reveal the whole truth with regard to the incident. Still then, the CID chose not to interrogate him further or conduct any other steps for the revelation of truth in the matter, particularly, as to the role of the said Officer-in-Charge and the local MLA in the custodial death of the victim. In R.S. Sodhi, Advocate Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) SCC (Cri) 248 the Apex Court while dealing with a case of murder involving police personnel held as follows :- “We have perused the events that have taken place since the incident 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 though in both advisable and desirable as well as 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.” In Rubabbuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat 2010 (2) SCC 200 The Supreme Court held as follows: “It is also well known that when police officials of the State were involved in the crime and in fact they are investigating the case, it would be proper and interest of justice would be better served if the investigation is directed to be carried out by the CBI Authorities, in that case CBI Authorities would be an appropriate authority to investigate the case. In Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court at para 8 observed: (SCC p 681) “8. ……We are also of the view that since there is allegation against the police personnel, the interest of justice would be better served if the case is registered and investigated by an independent agency like CBI”. In State of West Bengal & ors. Vs. The Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. 2010 (3) SCC 571 the Apex Court held that there is ample power in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct an investigation to be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation to provide “credibility and instill confidence in investigations” or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order is necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the factual matrix of grave and palpable dereliction of duty to fairly investigate the crime in the face of involvement of high police functionary and local politician we feel it prudent to transfer the investigation to an independent agency like CBI to instill confidence and credibility to such investigational procedure. Finally, it has been pleaded before us that the accused persons and/or the potential suspects have not been added as a party respondents. It is settled law that the process of investigation and/or selection of an independent agency to investigate a crime does not involve principles of natural justice. We, therefore, feel that in view of the nature of the order that we propose to pass it was not necessary to hear the accused persons or other potential suspects. In Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 79 it has been held as follows:- “It is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an investigation agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them.” (para 64) Similar is the view in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another reported in (1996) 11 SCC 253 (Para 8). The accused persons cannot choose as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them.” (para 64) Similar is the view in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another reported in (1996) 11 SCC 253 (Para 8). For the aforesaid reasons, we feel that for the purpose of fair and impartial investigation and to ensure credibility and public confidence to such investigation process, the investigation in the instant case being Dhaniakhali P.S. Case No. 8/13 dated 19.01.2013, be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation. CBI is directed to take charge of investigation within 7 days of communication of this order. Respondent No.5 is directed to ensure that CID, West Bengal hands over all papers relating to investigation of the aforesaid case to CBI within the aforesaid time. CBI shall thereafter conduct a free and fair investigation in all aspects of matter bearing in mind the deficiencies in investigation as indicated by us in the foregoing paragraphs and take it to its logical conclusion. Since the matter is at the stage of investigation and the same is not complete, we refrain from granting relief of compensation in the public law domain. The family of the victim, however, would be at liberty to agitate such claim in accordance with law, if so advised, upon completion of investigation in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extend. Any finding recorded by us is for the purpose of disposal of this application and shall not have any binding effect in the subsequent stage of the proceeding which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order to Special Director, CBI, Special Crime Zone, for compliance.