The Jharkhand High Court on Monday came up with its order in the plea filed for CBI probe in the Rupesh Pandey murder case. The High Court in its order said that the State Police tried to save the persons accused of killing Rupesh Pandey. Therefore, the court considers it appropriate to hand over the matter to the CBI for fair investigation and justice. 

The order passed by a single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi while hearing the criminal writ petition 110/22 filed by the mother of the deceased Urmila Devi read, “Prima facie it appears that the police is not investigating the matter independently and is getting influenced at the behest of some people. The incident was so horrific that the Human Rights Commission and the Children's Commission have also taken cognizance and they have sent their representative to Hazaribagh district.”

The court expressed surprise that even if the charge sheet was not submitted within 90 days, "higher police officers have not reviewed the case, which is suspicious." It also made a very serious comment on the increasing threat of mob lynching. The court also referred to the series of post-poll violence in Bengal where activists of an opposition party were murdered and the court ordered a CBI probe for a fair investigation.

Notably, a minor Rupesh Pandey was murdered on February 2 this year in Dulmaha village under Barhi police station in Hazaribagh district, where he had gone to attend the immersion procession of Goddess Saraswati.

The court said that the police have filed charge sheets against only five persons, while there are 27 named accused. The state has been delaying in informing the court about the steps taken to complete the investigation at the earliest. Besides this, the court also doubted the genuineness of the counter FIR filed by the opposite party. It was filed two days after Rupesh Pandey was lynched to death.

"In such a case which happened through mob lynching, what steps have been taken by the senior police officers to conclude the investigation at the earliest, it has not been disclosed in the counter affidavit. When the incident happened on February 6 and the entire police administration as well as the district administration swung into action, why was the case of arson not registered by the other community? On the complaint of the police and other community, another FIR was registered on February 8,” it said.

The court said the family of the deceased met Chief Minister Hemant Soren and demanded a CBI inquiry. Referring to a counter-affidavit filed by the state government, the court said the state tried to prove that the investigation was going in the right direction.

"Paragraph 59 of the counter affidavit states that the investigating agency has to proceed in its own way in the interrogation of the accused and the same should be released during the course of investigation to be pursued in a particular case. The question of discretion of the investigating agency remains that if such a statement is being made by the investigating officer on an affidavit before the court, which suggests that the investigating officer has to say that the investigation should be left to the discretion of the said IO,” the order read.

Stating that something is being concealed by the police, the court said that if the constitutional courts come to a conclusion that it is necessary to entrust a particular case to a particular agency, it has got the power to do so.

The court held that the CBI is overburdened and the court should not hand over the case to the CBI repeatedly. And it should be in the exercise of exceptional circumstances, where it is necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the inquiry or where such an order is necessary to do full justice and to enforce the fundamental rights.