Mere Reason That Accused Has Political Allegiance To Ruling Party Not Ground To Transfer Probe To CBI: Kerala HC In Alleged Unnatural Death Of Kannur’s ADM
Justice Kauser Edappagath, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has refused to transfer investigation from State to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an alleged unnatural death of former Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Naveen Babu of Kannur.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by the wife of the deceased ADM, seeking a CBI probe into his alleged unnatural death.
A Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath emphasised, “As stated already, the transfer of investigation from the State Investigating Agency to the CBI should be directed by the superior courts sparingly, only in exceptional cases where the investigation already conducted is found to be so unfair, tainted, malafide and in violation of the settled principles of investigative canons. Certainly, this is not such a case. 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.”
Advocate V. John Sebastian Ralph appeared for the Petitioner while Director General of Prosecution (DGP) T.A. Shaji, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) P. Narayanan, and Senior Advocate K.P. Satheesan appeared for the Respondents.
In this case, the Petitioner’s husband was found dead by hanging in his official quarters on October 15, 2024. At 10.15 a.m., on the same day, Kannur Town Police registered a crime under Section 194 of BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). During the investigation, it was revealed that the deceased faced public humiliation at the hands of the former Kannur District Panchayath President during his farewell function on the previous evening. It was further revealed that in her speech during the farewell function, the said President had accused the deceased of corruption in connection with the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for opening a fuel outlet.
It was further alleged that she threatened him of exposure within two days, recorded the visuals of the event to propagate the same through social media with an intent to publicly humiliate him and left the function before the memento was handed over to the deceased. This allegedly caused mental strain on him, and he was forced to commit suicide. Hence, Section 194 of BNSS was deleted, Section 108 of BNS was added, and the said President was arrayed as the sole accused.
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “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 petitioner could not point out any material flaw in the investigation conducted by the present investigation team warranting investigation by the CBI.”
The Court said that from a victimology point of view, the victim's plea for free and fair investigation holds absolute importance and the right to fair trial and fair investigation are basic fundamental rights that a victim has under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
“Under the BNSS, the victim's right to be informed about the progress of the investigation of the crime has been statutorily recognised. Section 193(3) of BNSS specifically requires the police to inform the victim of the progress in the investigation within ninety days and therefore allows the victim to be aware of possible lapses and delays in the investigation. Section 230 of BNSS provides victims with a crucial right to information about the details of their case through the mandatory provision of the police report, FIR, witness statements, etc., which is meant to enable effective and meaningful participation of the victim in the criminal process”, it further noted.
The Court added that though the grievances expounded by the Petitioner fall short of justifying a CBI probe, they deserve meaningful consideration by the SIT (Special Investigation Team) and that the SIT is bound to address and probe into the concerns expressed by the Petitioner, including the possibility of a homicidal hanging.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, disallowed the Petitioner’s prayer, and directed SIT to complete investigation with due diligence.
Cause Title- Manjusha K v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:88)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates V. John Sebastian Ralph, Ralph Reti John, Vishnu Chandran, Mary Greeshma, Geethu T.A., Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Liz Johny, and Krishnapriya Sreekumar.
Respondents: DGP T.A. Shaji, APP P. Narayanan, Senior G.P. Sajju S., and Senior Advocate K.P. Satheesan.
