ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant appropriate compensation to the petitioner or the mother of the deceased, namely, Ajam Hussain who met un-natural death in police custody of Mandu (Kuju) Police Station on 08.09.2012. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI). 2. The factual background of the case, in brief, is that Ajam Hussain (the cousin of the petitioner) was called by the Officer-in-Charge of Kuju O.P of Mandu P.S on 07.09.2012 and as such he appeared before the police at police station at about 3:30 p.m. where he was apprehended by the police and kept in the police lock-up. On the next morning i.e. on 08.09.2012 when the petitioner along with some villagers went to meet Ajam Hussain at police station, he told him that he was apprehended by police in Mandu (Kujju) Police Station Case No. 237 of 2012 said to be lodged on 07.09.2012 under section 376 of the IPC and was brutally assaulted by the police and some other persons in the last night at police station. Thereafter, the petitioner along with the villagers returned back to their houses. When they reached the house of Ajam Hussain, they heard that he died in Police lock-up and after hearing the said news the petitioner along with other villagers again came back to the police station and saw that the torn shirt of his cousin was tied with the Lock-up gate. They came to know that the Officer-in-charge Basant Kumar had taken the deceased to Hazaribagh Sadar Hospital. The petitioner and villagers made a written report for lodging FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Mandu (Kuju) Police Station on 08.09.2012. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was named in Mandu (Kuju) P.S Case No. 237 of 2012 lodged on 07.09.2012 under section 376 of the IPC and he had voluntarily surrendered before the police on 07.09.2012. The Officer-in-Charge of Mandu (Kuju) Police station had taken him in police custody and ultimately he died in police lock-up on the next morning, which creates doubt/suspicion on the conduct of the police. The Officer-in-Charge of Mandu (Kuju) Police station had taken him in police custody and ultimately he died in police lock-up on the next morning, which creates doubt/suspicion on the conduct of the police. On perusal of the FIR lodged by the police, it appears that the deceased died due to hanging through his shirt with the gate of police lock-up. It is further submitted that although the nearest Sadar Hospital Ramgarh is about 12 kms., the deceased was taken at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh which also shows the negligence and carelessness of the police authorities. When the general public got agitated and assembled in front of the police station, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh and other high ranking police officers assured to grant compensation to the family of the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and after his death the petitioner is taking care of the family of the deceased. It is also submitted that even after the lapse of a long time, the authorities are sitting tight over the matter causing great agony to the family of the deceased. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the deceased was arrested on 07.09.2012 at about 17.30 hours in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S Case No. 237 of 2012 dated 07.09.2012 registered under section 376 of the IPC and was kept in ‘Police Hazat’ under proper protection. On 08.09.2012 at 7.00 hours, he went to toilet along with Chowkidar, namely, Noor Mohammad Eqbal and suddenly at 8:30 hours ASI Amir Aslam Khan saw that the deceased was hanging through his shirt in the lock-up. All police officials came near the lock-up, opened the lock and found that the feet of the deceased were folded. Immediately thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Sadar Hospital Hazaribagh for better and needful treatment, however he was declared dead by the Medical officer. The post mortem and inquest were done in presence of a magistrate and an U.D. Case was lodged as Kuju O.P Case No. 11/12 dated 08.09.2012. Later on, the case was transferred to CID for proper investigation. The charges levelled against the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station was fully inquired and the same was found false. It is observed in the post mortem report that the death was due to asphyxia caused by hanging. Later on, the case was transferred to CID for proper investigation. The charges levelled against the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station was fully inquired and the same was found false. It is observed in the post mortem report that the death was due to asphyxia caused by hanging. It is further submitted that the deceased was arrested by the police and it is wrong to say that he had surrendered before the police. It is further submitted that due to non-availability of latest medical facilities at Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh or any other hospital in the vicinity, the deceased was taken to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the office of the A.D.G.P, Crime Investigation Department (in short CID), Jharkhand vide letter dated 11.09.2012 directed the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh to send a report to the N.H.R.C. within 24 hours and to further provide FIR, inquest report, post mortem report and the magisterial inquiry report. Thereafter, the investigating officer of the CID took up the investigation which was supervised by the Regional Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Hazaribagh. In the magisterial inquiry, the S.D.O. Ramgarh gave a prima facie opinion that the death was due to asphyxia caused by hanging but a conclusive opinion could not be formed as to whether the said hanging was suicidal/homicidal or accidental in absence of the forensic report of viscera. The Viscera report was thereafter submitted by the SFSL Jharkhand, Ranchi. The result of said examination was “No metallic, alkaloidal, pesticidal, volatile or non-volatile poison could be detected.” The final progress report was issued by the Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Jharkhand wherein it was found that the inquest report was prepared by the Executive Magistrate and the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ramgarh jointly. Post Mortem was done by a Medical Board and it was also video graphed and as such NHRC guidelines were duly followed. On the basis of the material collected by the investigating officer, the case of unnatural death was found true. The Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police while issuing the final progress report recommended for submitting final report before the court below stating that the death was caused due to hanging. Subsequently vide memo no. 257 dated 26.10.2013, the Superintendent of Police, CID directed the I.O of the case to submit final report stating the cause of death due to hanging. The Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police while issuing the final progress report recommended for submitting final report before the court below stating that the death was caused due to hanging. Subsequently vide memo no. 257 dated 26.10.2013, the Superintendent of Police, CID directed the I.O of the case to submit final report stating the cause of death due to hanging. He further directed to submit the up-to date case diary. Thus, the IO of the case submitted the final report vide Report No. 11/12 dated 28.10.2013 wherein the UD case was found true and cause of death was due to hanging. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The petitioner has made two fold prayers in the present case. So far the prayer for issuance of a direction to the CBI to make an investigation in the matter, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521 , would be relevant to see as to the circumstances under which the investigation may be referred to the CBI. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read thus:- “5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause. This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus: (SCC p. 750, para 174) “174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate ‘any other offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus: (SCC p. 750, para 174) “174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate ‘any other offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person’s involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of LIFE and LIBERTY guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of LIFE has been explained in a manner which has infused LIFE into the letters of Article 21.” 6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of “its” and “buts” and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Common Cause.” 7. It would thus emerge that though the High Court has the power to refer a suitable case to be investigated by the CBI, yet the said power is to be exercised with circumspection and not in a routine manner merely because a party makes certain allegations against the State police. 8. It would thus emerge that though the High Court has the power to refer a suitable case to be investigated by the CBI, yet the said power is to be exercised with circumspection and not in a routine manner merely because a party makes certain allegations against the State police. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has not brought on record any material to prima facie suggest torture or custodial violence by the police during the period the deceased was in the police lock-up. Though, it has been alleged by the petitioner that the deceased had told him that he was brutally assaulted by the police however, no bodily injury was found on the person of the deceased in the post mortem report. It has specifically been stated on behalf of the State that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S Case No. 237 of 2012 and as such the detention of the deceased cannot be termed as illegal. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that that the deceased was not given the proper treatment, rather he was taken to a hospital which was far away from the police station. The said allegation of the petitioner has sufficiently been answered by the respondent-State explaining that the Sadar Hospital at Hazaribagh was having better medical facilities than the Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh. Moreover, on perusal of the counter affidavit of the respondent-CID, it appears that after the investigation of the case, the final form was submitted by it. The viscera was also sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jharkhand and the report was submitted on 22.07.2013 wherein no poisonous substance was found in the viscera. 9. Thus for want of absolute evidence of physical harassments of the deceased or even bodily violence caused to him by the police, which could amount to a breach of constitutional guarantees, the question of violation of his human rights does not, prima facie, appear in this case. 10. Under the aforesaid factual position, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any prima facie material to suggest faulty/biased investigation on the part of CID so as to direct the CBI to investigate the case. 11. The next prayer of the petitioner is to direct the State Authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner or the mother of the deceased. 12. 11. The next prayer of the petitioner is to direct the State Authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner or the mother of the deceased. 12. To appreciate the said prayer of the petitioner, I have gone through para 12 of the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 9 filed on 03.07.2017 wherein it has been stated that in the supervision report the Deputy Superintendent of Police found some error with regard to the construction of room in front of the lock up and opined that if there had been no room in front of the lock-up, it would have certainly been visible from outside and the officers and staff would have seen the occurrence. Obviously for the error in the construction of the police lock-up, the State is to be held responsible. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the special circumstances surrounding the present tragic incident in which the precious life of a common man in his prime phase of youth has ended within the precinct of a police lock-up, irrespective of the ultimate reason which might have led the deceased to take the extreme step, the State Government is directed to pay ex-gratia grant to the mother/father of the deceased which may help the family members in mitigating their distress and financial deprivation caused to them due to unnatural death of the deceased. Accordingly, the Government of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home is directed to make payment of Rs. 2.50 lacs to the mother/father of the deceased on her/his due identification by way of ex-gratia grant purely on humanitarian ground to meet the ends of justice in the present case. 14. The present wit petition is, accordingly, disposed of.