S Jeeva suicide case: Karnataka High Court raps lower court on notice to SIT

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has directed the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Prevention of corruption of offences) to ‘encourage restraint, and not indulge in commenting or taking note of any matter’ concerning the Special Investigating Team (SIT) probing the suicide of S Jeeva, an accused in the Bhovi Development Corporation scam case.

The special court had issued a show cause notice calling for explanation from the members of the SIT for drawing the assistance of certain other officers in the investigation.

On December 4, 2024, the High Court had constituted a three-member SIT to investigate the alleged abetment to suicide charge against DySP Kanaka Lakshmi BM, who was investigating the officer in the scam case. After participating in the investigation on several dates, on November 22, 2024, Jeeva ended her life by suicide. Her sister Sangeetha filed a complaint accusing Kanaka Lakshmi of torturing Jeeva and thus abetting the suicide.

The court had appointed IPS officer Vinayak Verma, CBI (ACB), Bengaluru and two other IPS officers from the state police; Hakay Akshay Manchhindra of Home Guards and Nisha James of the Internal Security Division.

“When this court has constituted a SIT and is monitoring investigation, it is ununderstandable as to how a session Court is seeking to interpret the orders of this Court and issue show cause notice to the SIT constituted by this Court to explain the manner in which it is written,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed.

P Prasanna Kumar, special public prosecutor for CBI and B N Jagadeesh, Additional State Public Prosecutor, had brought to the notice of the High Court about the show cause notice issued by the special court and also seeking investigation records. The special court had observed that the SIT is not supposed to entrust the responsibility of investigation to a different team other than the one that was constituted by the high court and the same would amount to contempt of court.

However, the High Court noted that it had given liberty to the SIT to seek assistance of other officers, if it is so required and also that the high court would itself monitor the investigation.

“A perusal at the papers placed before me is indicative of the fact that the case diary of day to day happenings of the investigation is made note of by the officers that are drawn for assistance and is separately noted in the papers of investigation. This is what is discernible from the papers placed before me. The show cause notice issued to the SIT by the Court of session to SIT constituted by this court would fringe on the borders of contempt. Therefore, it is directed that the court shall encourage restraint and not indulge in commenting or taking note of any matter concerning the SIT, unless this court would otherwise direct. The status report of investigation conducted from time to time will be collated and placed before me, on the next date,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.