Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Single Bench of Justice Harinath N dismissed a writ petition seeking transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), stating that "it would be premature to doubt the intentions of the investigating agency" and "this Court has not found any major deviation(s) of the established procedure of law in so far as the investigation is concerned."

The petitioner had sought a direction to transfer the investigation in Crime No. 103 of 2024 from I Town Police Station, Hindupur, to the CBI or alternatively the CID, alleging that the investigation into the death of one Sampath Kumar in police custody was "illegal, arbitrary, biased and with malice." However, the court declined the request, citing lack of material irregularities and observing that the ongoing investigation is in accordance with collected evidence.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Second Foreigners Tribunal Case | Abuse Of Process Against Person Already Declared Indian

The writ petition was filed by B. Narendra Kumar, asserting that the investigation into Crime No. 103 of 2024 by Hindupur I Town Police was not impartial and involved procedural violations. The case stemmed from the custodial death of Sampath Kumar, who was arraigned as accused No. 4 in Crime No. 88 of 2024 under Sections 448, 323, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sampath Kumar, referred to as the "deceased," had arrived in Hindupur from Kerala on 27.05.2024. On 28.05.2024, he was arrested and produced before the Magistrate. The Magistrate rejected the remand request, observing that the offences were punishable with less than 7 years and the police had not provided any justification for not issuing a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The Magistrate further observed that the SHO had "violated Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and also defied the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar." A memo seeking explanation from the SHO was issued. The deceased was granted bail with conditions requiring solvent securities.

However, due to inability to furnish the required sureties, the deceased's advocate filed a memo on 29.05.2024 seeking more time. The petitioner claimed that the police again produced the deceased before the Magistrate at 6:50 PM on 29.05.2024 and continued holding him in custody. The next day, Sampath Kumar was found dead in Dharmavaram.

The petitioner alleged that the deceased had been targeted for certain social media posts that allegedly contained derogatory remarks against officers’ spouses, and that he was framed to shield the actual culprits within the police department.

In contrast, the State, represented by the Advocate General, submitted that the petition was not maintainable as "the accused cannot choose the investigation agency." It was asserted that the deceased was released on bail on 28.05.2024 and was not in police custody at the time of death. According to the State, the deceased appeared before the Magistrate with his advocate on 29.05.2024 solely to seek extension of time for furnishing securities, and was not produced by the police. The presence of Sampath Kumar at a private dinner event that evening was cited from the statement of LW.6.

The Advocate General further submitted that the case had been transferred to Hindupur from Dharmavaram due to applicability of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the police had already arraigned the suspected persons. It was contended that the writ petition was based on a "fictitious narrative" and had stayed the investigation for five months, warranting a vacation of the stay.

The petitioner's counsel relied on several Supreme Court judgements to argue for fair and impartial investigation:

• In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254, it was stated that "investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious... where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere."

• In Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627, the court recorded that "the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also."

• In Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 15 SCC 470, the Court said: "The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and to bring the offender to book... the accused is entitled to fair and true investigation and fair trial."

• In Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135, it was held that "the power of the constitutional courts to direct further investigation is a dynamic component of judicial review."

In reply, the State cited precedents to argue that an accused has no say in selection of the investigating agency. In CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi (1996) 11 SCC 253, the Supreme Court stated: "The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with." Similarly, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Court held that "no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency." In Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753, it was reaffirmed that the accused "cannot choose as to which investigation agency must investigate the offence committed by them."

The court reviewed the case and general diaries from 10.05.2024 to 30.04.2024, statements of witnesses including Constables Nos. 2424 and 3279, and found that the deceased had been released on 28.05.2024.

The court observed that "the investigation is being progressed in the direction as per the evidence collected by the Police during the course of their investigation." It noted that LW.6 had confirmed the deceased's presence at a family function and having dinner with Clinton Moses on the evening of 29.05.2024.

Justice Harinath recorded, "It is premature to conclude that the investigation done by the Hindupur I Town Police Station so far is biased, motivated and only for shielding the real culprits."

On the question of the docket order of 29.05.2024, the Bench noted that the deceased had been produced in court by his advocate, not the police, and held, "it is amply clear that the deceased was set at liberty on 28.05.2024 itself."

Also Read: Ensure Adequate Legal Representation And Pursue Diplomatic Protection | Delhi High Court Directs Urgent Consular And Diplomatic Aid For Indians Facing Death Penalty In Indonesia

Accordingly, the Bench recorded that "this Court is not inclined to interfere in the investigation on the primary ground that this Court has not found any major deviation(s) of the established procedure of law."

The writ petition was dismissed. The court directed: "In the result, writ petition is dismissed without costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For The Petitioners: M R K Chakravarthy

For The Respondents: P S P Suresh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, Sridhar Tummalapudi, Central Government Counsel, Abdus Saleem

Case Title: B. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India and Others

Neutral Citation: APHC010524542024

Case Number: WP.No.27032 of 2024

Bench: Justice Harinath N

[Read/Download order]