Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Monday (March 3, 2025), upheld a single-judge’s refusal to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the death of late Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Naveen Babu.

The Bench comprising Justices PB Suresh Kumar and Jobin Sebastian dismissed an appeal filed by Manjusha K., the widow of ADM Naveen Babu, challenging the single-judge's earlier ruling that denied a CBI investigation.  The court held that the ongoing probe by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) was proceeding satisfactorily and did not warrant intervention.

Babu was found dead by hanging in his official quarters on October 15, 2024, a day after attending a farewell ceremony for his transfer to another district. During the event, former Kannur District Panchayat President and CPI(M) leader P.P. Divya publicly accused him of corruption, which, according to the petitioner, led to his alleged suicide. Following his death, Divya was charged with abetment of suicide. She was arrested and later granted bail on November 8, 2024. The case was subsequently taken up by an SIT, comprising senior police officers.

The petitioner contended that the SIT’s investigation lacked credibility and that evidence was being manipulated to shield Divya. The petitioner raised concerns over investigative lapses, noting the delay in informing the police by the driver who found the body, the FIR’s premature classification of suicide, and a flawed inquest conducted without notifying the family of the deceased and by a Station House Officer instead of a senior officer.

In January, a Single judge bench comprising Justice Kauser Edappagath, dismissed the writ petition observing that “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.”

Upholding the Single judge’s order, the Division Bench ruled that the petitioner had failed to establish a reasonable basis for transferring the probe. The court noted: “there is no basis for any legitimate apprehension that the investigation in the case would not be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Investigation in a case cannot be transferred merely for the reason that the victim entertains an apprehension that the investigation will not be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. In order to transfer the investigation, the apprehension shall be reasonable and not imaginary. A reasonable apprehension means that the apprehension is based on concrete facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the investigation is compromised. The personal feelings of the victim, howsoever genuine, is not enough to warrant a transfer.”

Referencing the the Supreme Court’s ruling in Suneetha Narreddy v. CBI (2023), the bench reiterated that if the courts fail to adopt the principle of reasonable apprehension while considering the transfer of investigation, “this can also lead to a loss of trust in the criminal justice system, both from the public point of view and also from the point of view of those who rely on the integrity of the legal process.”

Addressing the driver's delay in reporting the death, the court noted that the delay of one hour and forty minutes was not unusual under such circumstances and did not indicate foul play. “The first informant being only the driver of the deceased, and in the absence of any specific allegation of malice against him, regard being had to common course of natural events and human conduct particularly in moments of shock and distress, we do not think, prima facie, that the same is a ground to suspect that the case on hand is not one of suicide,” the court held.

As for the FIR’s classification of the case as suicide, the court clarified that this was based on the initial statement of the informant, not a final conclusion by the police, and that the investigation remained open to other possibilities.

Regarding the inquest process, the court pointed out that the petitioner does not have a case that the Station House Officer is either incompetent or unauthorised to hold the inquest. The court  highlighted that it is not  mandatory that the inquest shall be held only in the presence of the relatives, stating that “Section 196(5) of the BNSS only provides that, wherever practicable, the officer holding an inquest shall inform the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry.”

Similarly, the court found that the post-mortem was conducted promptly to avoid delays, and there was no evidence to suggest any impropriety in the procedure.

The court concluded that the appeal was sans merit and dismissed it, stating that “in the pursuit of truth, the doubts and apprehensions that occur should not be dismissed, neither should the same be allowed to paralyse us.”

 

Cause Title: Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. [WA NO. 193 OF 2025]

Appearance:  For the appellant/petitioner- Advocates K. Balachandran (PN) N. S. Gopakumar and Senior Advocate K. Ramakumar; For the respondents-  Director General of Prosecution (DGP) T. A. Shaji, Special Government Pleader to DGP and Additional Public Prosecutor (Addl. PP) P. Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader (Sr. GP) Sajju S., and Special Public Prosecutor (SPL. PP) for CBI Sreelal N. Warrier.