SC chides UP cops over clean chit to BJP MLA Sushil Singh in BSP leader Ram Bihari Chaubey's murder case

The bench said that the investigation appeared to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate and set aside the closure report

The Supreme Court on Monday castigated the Uttar Pradesh police for giving a clean chit to BJP MLA Sushil Singh in the murder investigation of BSP leader Ram Bihari Chaubey in 2015 in Varanasi, saying the investigation and the closure report were "extremely casual and perfunctory in nature".

A three-judge bench presided over by Justice R F Nariman set aside the closure report filed by the police, after pointing out the investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate.

The court appointed senior IPS officer Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, to carry out further investigation in the matter through a team of competent officers to be selected by him.

The apex court decided to supervise the matter after giving two months to complete the probe.

Acting on a petition filed by Amar Nath Chaubey, son of the deceased leader, the court noted that eight investigating officers were changed and an investigation, which had been kept pending since the lodging of FIR on December 4, 2015, was promptly closed on January 30, 2019.

The court pulled up the police also for saying the petitioner had failed to provide any concrete evidence of a conspiracy against the MLA.

“The police have the primary duty to investigate on receiving a report of the commission of a cognizable offence. This is a statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure, apart from being a constitutional obligation to ensure that peace is maintained in the society and the rule of law is upheld and applied. To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate, to our mind, is a preposterous statement,” the court said.

Maintaining that a fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the bench said the court cannot abdicate its duties if it is found that the police have not investigated properly or apparently were remiss in the investigation, which, though was their exclusive privilege and prerogative.