Accused Having Ties With Ruling Political Party Not Ground To Transfer Probe From State Agency To CBI: Kerala HC In ADM Naveen Babu's Case

“It appears from the case diary that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction adhering to all the best practices in the criminal investigation...

the transfer of investigation from the State Investigating Agency to the CBI should be directed by the superior courts sparingly, only in exceptional cases...The mere reason that the accused has political allegiance to the ruling political party is not a ground to transfer the investigation of the crime from the State Investigating Agency to the CBI."

However, observing that victim has the right to take part in the investigation of the crime (Jagjeet Singh and Others v Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Anr (2022)) and the right to be informed about the progress in the investigation within 90 days (Section 193(3) of BNSS), the Court asked the SIT to inform Babu's wife about the progress of investigation.

The Petitioner had raised the following grounds to hand over the investigation to CBI.

1. The inquest was carried out before the petitioner and her relatives had arrived at the scene though it is mandatory for the police officer to ensure the presence of close relatives during the inquest.
2. Necessary CCTV footage especially from the premises of the Collectorate, Railway Station and the official quarters of the deceased were not seized by the SIT
3. No steps was taken to collect the Call Data Records (CDR) of the Kannur District Collector, the accused and Prasanth who applied for a NOC for starting the petrol station
4. The scientific evidence such as cellophane lifting from the palm of the deceased and the ligature allegedly used for hanging to confirm suicide, was not done with the assistance of a scientific expert.
5. For a significant period, the SIT failed to record the statements of the deceased relatives, including the petitioner
6. The accused has a strong backing of the ruling party which can naturally influence police investigation
7. There could be a possibility that the deceased left a suicide note and it was suppressed by the investigation team to favour the accused.
8. The SIT was not constituted as per the law.

The Court however said that these grounds were contrary to facts.

On the point of inquest, the said, "It is not mandatory that the presence of close relatives of the deceased be ensured during the inquest. The statement of relatives needs to be taken only if they are present at the time of the inquest."

Also significant to note to that as per Government circular, which inquest proceedings are to be completed within 4 hours in general cases and 5 hours in exceptional cases. However, Babu's relatives reached Kannur only after 15 hours after receipt of information regarding his death. In this backdrop the Court said, "It was not practical to keep the body in such a condition till family members reached Kannur..."

The Court further said that as per the post-mortem reports, there was no doubt of homicidal hanging. The report said “post-mortem findings are consistent with death due to hanging”. However, the Court added that SIT is investigating the possibility of a homicidal hanging.

The Court further said that as per the case diary, the CCTV footage near the Collectorate, Muneeswaram Kovil where the deceased got down from his car on his way to the railway station, railway station and footage from approximately 30 metres near to the official quarters of the deceased has been collected, analysed and seized under the seizure mehzar.

The Court further noted that as per the records, the Call Data Records of Kannur District Collector and Prasanth has been collected and verified.

It further noted from the case diary that cellophane lifting and collection of ligature marks were done by the Scientific Officer, DFSL, Kannur and the fingerprint expert of the Fingerprint Bureau.

The Court also noted that the statement of the petitioner, her 2 daughter and their 2 neighbours were recorded within 3 days of the incident.

The Court then noted that no suicide note was recovered from Babu's body or place of occurrence. 2 mobile phones of the deceased were recovered and inspected by the Cyber Cell. However, no suicide note could be detected.

The Court also noted that there were no illegalities in the constitution of the SIT. The SIT was constituted as per a Government Order. The Court said that no bias or malafides have been alleged against any member of the SIT.

The Court concluded that the SIT should consider and address the concerns of the petitioner. It further directed Kannur DIG to scrupulously monitor the SIT investigation. The SIT should submit periodical reports to the DIG showing progress of the investigation. Further, the Court directed that the final report shall be filed only after it is vetted and approved by the DIG.

Case No: WP(Crl.) 1297 of 2024

Case Title: Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4