GOPAL KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (WEST BENGAL)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Gopal Kumar Agarwal
Director General Of Police (West Bengal)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner seeks re-investigation of Ranigunge Police Station Case No.372/2017 by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, an unnatural death case in relation to the death of the sister of the petitioner was recorded by the Police on October 6, 2017. He draws the attention of the Court to the post mortem report dated October 6, 2017 and submits that, the post mortem report states that, there are burn injuries and gunshot injury. The post mortem report is of the view that, the burn injuries were prior to the gun short injury. He draws the attention of the Court to the charge-sheet filed. He submits that, the charge-sheet returns a finding that, the victim died of the gunshot injury and that the burn injuries were subsequent to the gunshot injury. There are other discrepancies between the post mortem report and the charge-sheet. Moreover, he submits that, the charge-sheet records that, further investigation is required. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, there are certain close circuit television (C.C.T.V.) records available with the Police authorities which, the investigating authority did not look into before submitting the charge-sheet. The investigating agency ought to have taken the C.C.T.V. footage into consideration prior to arriving at a finding that, the private respondent should be charged for abetment to commit suicide. The inference that, the deceased committed suicide as made in the charge-sheet, is without any basis. He submits that, the charge-sheet gives rise to more questions than it seeks to answer. He relies upon the pleadings in paragraph 22 of the writ petition. He submits that, various discrepancies between the post mortem report, the charge-sheet and the investigation are tabulated therein. The investigation was not carried out properly to instill any sense of confidence in the petitioner. The petitioner is unlikely to receive justice with the present investigating agency continuing with the further investigation. He draws the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Single Judge in the first writ petition and the order of the Division Bench granting bail to the private respondent. He submits that, the initial order of the learned single Judge directing the investigation to be done by the CBI was reversed on appeal. He submits that, such a reversal by the appeal Court does not mean that, at any stage of the investigation subsequent thereto, the petitioner is not entitled to have the writ Court decide as to whether there should be change in the investigating agency or not. He submits that, the constitutional Court can direct change of investigating agency. Such power is not vested with the Magistrate. In support of such contention he relies upon 2016 Volume-IV Supreme Court Cases Page-160 (Dharam Pal Versus State of Haryana and Ors.). He seeks a change of the investigating authority.
(3.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the charge-sheet itself states that, further investigation is required. The investigating agency is looking into such aspect of the matter. There is no ground as to why the investigating agency should be changed. The petitioner is trying to harass and prolong the agony of the private respondent. The private respondent was in custody for three months before the bail was granted. Although, the charge-sheet is of the view that, a charge of abetment to commit suicide can be levelled against the private respondent, in the facts of the present case, the private respondent is confident that, such a charge is unfounded. He relies upon 2011 Volume-XIII Supreme Court Cases Page 537 (Disha Versus State of Gujarat and Ors.) and submits that, it lays down the conditions which must be satisfied for a Court to transfer the investigation to the C.B.I or any other special agency. In the facts of the present case, he submits that, none of the conditions stands satisfied. The allegation that, the private respondent is an influential person did not find favour with the Division Bench granting bail to the private respondent. The private respondent is not a high government official. There is no material on record to suggest that, the investigation did not proceed in a proper direction or it is biased. Therefore, the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction in substituting the investigating agency or in granting the prayer of the investigation through the C.B.I. as made by the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.