NEW DELHI: NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered CBI probe into mysterious suicidal death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
The apex court asked the Mumbai Police to hand over all evidence collected so far in the case to CBI.
The court observed that the FIR registered at Patna on the complaint filed by Rajput’s father was correct. The court added that the Bihar government had the right to refer the Patna FIR lodged by Rajput’s father to CBI.
The SC said CBI will be competent to probe not only the Patna FIR but any other FIR related to Rajput death case.
The court ensured that there was no confusion about CBI being sole authority to probe the mystery behind Rajput’s suicidal death and that no other state police could interfere with it.
The court further observed that since the Mumbai police had registered only an accidental death report for Rajput’s death, it had limited investigation powers. Since Bihar police registered a full fledged FIR which already stand referred to CBI, the central agency should probe the case.
Earlier, the Bihar government had referred the Patna FIR to the CBI, leading the Centre to ask the investigating agency to take up the case. However, Maharashtra government had opposed the Centre’s decision to hand over the case to CBI and said the Patna FIR should be transferred to Mumbai police in whose jurisdiction the incident happened. Mumbai police are yet to register an FIR and have continued their inquiry under an accidental death report.
On July 25, KK Singh, the father of Rajput, had submitted a complaint to the Patna police against Chakraborty, her family members and a few others, alleging they abetted his son’s suicide.
Based on the complaint, the Patna police had filed an FIR against Chakraborty and others.
In the complaint, Singh had also claimed that an amount of Rs 15 crore was siphoned off from his son’s bank account.
The FIR in Patna was registered by Singh against Chakraborty and others for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 306 (abetment of suicide), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 380 (theft in dwelling house), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property).
Who said what
Entering the fray, solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the SC that it was a fit case for CBI probe as Mumbai police had not registered an FIR and had declared that it was a case of suicide.
We do not know what is the role of Chakraborty in the case — witness, accused, complainant or nobody? Yet, she moves an application in the SC seeking transfer of the FIR to Mumbai. What is her interest in seeking transfer when she should be interested only in a fair probe, irrespective of the agency which investigates the case,” Mehta had said.
The Bihar government told SC that “political clout” has not allowed Mumbai Police to even register an FIR in Rajput’s case.
Maharashtra government had argued that Bihar completely lacks jurisdiction in the matter.
Chakraborty’s counsel had told the bench that probe by Mumbai Police has “proceeded quite substantially” as it has recorded statements of 56 persons in the case.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Rajput’s father, Krishna Kishore Singh, had countered submissions advanced by Chakraborty’s counsel and said that they have “no faith” in Maharashtra Police.
Rajput, 34, was found hanging from the ceiling of his apartment in suburban Bandra in Mumbai on June 14 and since then Mumbai Police has been probing the case.