The Madras High Court today refused to stay a single judge's order for a CBI probe into the alleged custodial torture of a woman by police personnel at Udumalpet station in Tirupur district and wondered how the state could appeal against such cases directing the CBI Joint Director to continue investigation.
A division bench, comprising Justices Sathish K Agnihotri and K K Sasidharan, stated this today while declining to stay the order of Justice V Ramasubramanian who ordered a CBI inquiry into the alleged custodial torture of the woman.
"The Joint Director, CBI, should continue with the investigation as directed by the single judge in the writ petition," the bench said when the appeal filed by the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), the DGP and the Home Secretary came up for hearing today.
The bench also orally directed counsel Ms. Vaigai to be present in the court to assist it in the next date of hearing.
A vacation bench had on September 27 admitted the appeal and issued the notice to the victim's counsel and posted the matter to today.
Advocate General A L Somayaji quoted several Supreme Court Judgments to contend that the investigation cannot be transfer to CBI at the instance of the accused.
The bench rejected his argument that the single judge had ordered the CBI inquiry though the petitioners themselves had sought a probe other than by the Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet, and noted that the Judge in his order had observed the manner in which the Judicial Magistrates acted.
It also rejected the AG's arguments that the lady was a murder accused and had not levelled any torture charge before the magistrate and so it was not open for her to straightaway seek change of investigation.
"We do not want to interfere now. We will admit the appeal. Let them file counter," it said.
The matter relates to the alleged custodial torture of a woman by police, who is allegedly an accused in a murder case.
Justice Ramasubramanian, who ordered the CBI probe, had also directed that an FIR be filed against police officials, apart from ordering Rs two lakh interim compensation to the victim.
The government challenged this order, contending there was no warrant for a direction of investigation by CBI, especially when police and other state machinery agreed for an inquiry by the Executive Magistrate under the Police Standing orders.
It alleged that the Judge had erred in concluding it would not be fair to entrust the investigation to police when there was no reason, circumstances or facts to support such a conclusion nor any material to show police would not perform a fair and thorough investigation.
Contending that entrusting the probe to CBI was only on 'highly tenuous and flimsy material', the appeal also said that despite repeated medical examinations, it was made clear that the accused had sustained only minor injuries and there were no injuries on her genitalia, which are consistent.
The bench, after hearing arguments, posted the matter for further hearing to October 28.
