Supreme Court transfers cases against Bengal BJP leader to CBI, says atmosphere 'politically charged'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday transferred investigation into two FIRs lodged against a BJP leader, who is an ex son-in-law of a TMC MP, to the CBI saying politically charged atmosphere in West Bengal may not be very conducive to a fair investigation.

WB BJP leader, Kabir Shankar Bose sought a probe by an independent agency or a special investigation team into the FIRs lodged on December 7, 2020 allegedly under pressure of Kalyan Banerjee, his ex father-in- law and MP. He alleged in fact TMC goons had attacked him in which CISF personnel deployed for his security due to political vendetta and threats, were also injured.

Acting on his writ petition, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal noted the facts of the case particularly, that Banerjee is a parliamentarian from the ruling party in West Bengal and that the petitioner belonged to the ruling party at the Centre.

The court also said the political scenario in West Bengal is apparently opposed to the party in power at the Centre; and there is no denial to the alleged incident involving CISF officials attached to the petitioner.

"It is, hence, considered appropriate that instead of keeping the investigation pending for an indefinite period, the investigation be transferred to the CBI," the bench said.

The court also pointed out it is well recognised that investigation should not only be credible but also appear to be credible.

"Even otherwise, the law requires that justice may not only be done but it must appear to have been done. Thus, following the dictum, to ensure a fair investigation in the matter, there appears to be weight in the argument of the petitioner to transfer the investigation to an independent agency," the bench said.

The bench also said the matter of entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically at the discretion of the court which has to be exercised on sound legal principles.

"Therefore, the presence of complainant or informants are not very necessary before the court. We do not feel that any prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if the investigation is conducted by an independent agency other than the State police," the bench said.

The court also felt the case involved the investigation of the role of CISF or its personnel which cannot be left in the hands of the local police also for reasons of conflicting interests.

"Thus, in our view, it is not appropriate to permit the local police to examine the conduct of CISF personnel in the instant case," the bench said.

The bench also said the apex court had on January 13, 2021 stayed the investigation into two FIRs registered with Police Station Serampore, West Bengal for offences of assault, attempt to murder and molestation, which cannot be left pending for too long.

"Ordinarily we would have relegated the petitioner to the High Court but we refrain from doing so after the petition had been entertained," the bench said.

The CISF by an affidavit claimed an unruly crowd led by Banerjee had gathered in front of the house of the petitioner and tried to manhandle him and resulting into injuries to CISF personnel.

The local police, present at the scene, did not permit the CISF reinforcement team which had arrived from Kolkata led by two officers namely Vikas Chaudhary and Yadram Yadav to enter the premises. The next day, two FIRs came to be lodged.

Banerjee, on his part, claimed the petitioner had a strong grudge against him due to martial discord and unnecessarily tried to malign him. The entire story, as narrated by the petitioner, is all concocted and fabricated, he said. The WB government also opposed the petition.

"In view of admitted position, the possibility that the petitioner may not get a fair investigation at the hands of the local police or that the local police may not behave cordially with him in the course of investigation may not be baseless and cannot be brushed aside outrightly or lightly," the bench said.

The court also pointed out it was conscious of the legal position that no party, either the accused or the complainant or informant, is entitled to choose the investigating agency or to insist for investigation of a crime by a particular agency.