ORDER :

The son of the petitioners had passed away, in suspicious circumstances, on 20.05.2022. Upon a complaint made in this regard by the 1st petitioner, Crime No.195 of 2022 was registered on 20.05.2022 in Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the provision of law was altered to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The sole accused in the case was arrested on 23.05.2022 and has remained in judicial custody since then. The Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet before the Special Court for SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cum X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram on 22.08.2022, in which the accused has been accused of offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Act. About 56 witnesses have been listed along with the charge sheet. It is also stated in the charge sheet that C.C. TV footage of the house of the accused after the commission of offence and the CC footage near the scene of offence prior to the commission of offence is to be examined to ascertain the presence and involvement of the other accused, if any, and that the other accused could be charged by way of an additional charge sheet if reliable evidence, either technical or material, regarding the involvement of other persons comes out in the case. This charge sheet is said to have been returned with some objections and steps are being taken to resubmit the charge sheet.

3. Even while the investigation was going on in the above case, the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 08.06.2022, to the authorities to transfer the investigation to an independent investigating agency like C.B.I. The petitioners contend that this representation has been ignored by the State machinery and no response has been given in relation to this representation. The petitioners are now before this Court, seeking a direction from this Court to transfer the investigation of the above case to an independent investigating agency like C.B.I.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the accused is a member of the Legislative Council and is a highly influential person, who is ensuring that the police do not conduct a proper enquiry and are trying to exonerate other persons who were involved in the homicide of their son. The petitioners would point out to various mistakes, which are occurring in the manner in which the investigation is being carried out, to contend that the said mistakes are deliberate mistakes being done to help the accused.

5. The version of the petitioners, about the manner in which their son (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) had passed away, is as follows:

a) The deceased was earlier working as a driver of the accused, in the course of his employment, had also taken a loan of Rs.50,000/-, for his marriage expenses, from the accused and had repaid an amount of Rs.30,000/-. After some time, he had left the employment of the accused without repaying the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-

b) On the intervening night of 19.05.2022 and 20.05.2022 one Sri A. Manikanta is said to have came on his motor cycle and picked up the deceased at 7.30 p.m.

c) Later, the accused is said to have contacted the father of the deceased, (the 2nd petitioner herein) at around 8.30 p.m., and enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased and demanded repayment of the unpaid loan amount of Rs.20,000/- and threatened serious consequences, if the money was not paid.

d) At about 0.52 a.m., the accused contacted the father of the deceased saying that the deceased was involved in an accident with a motor cycle and that he was going to the accident site.

e) The younger brother of the deceased is said to have immediately caused enquiries to know if any accident had taken place or not and came to know that no such