JUDGMENT

1. Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the appellants were not represented on December 5, 2019 when the appeal and the connected application were dismissed for default.

2. The order dated December 5, 2019 is recalled. The appeal is readmitted and the connection application is restored to the file.

3. The restoration application, CAN 12231 of 2019, is allowed as above.

4. Since the principal parties are represented, the appeal is taken up for immediate consideration.

5. The appellants question the propriety of a judgment and order dated May 17, 2019 directing an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the circumstances leading to the unnatural death of a person on July 12, 2011.

6. According to the appellants, a thorough investigation was conducted by the appropriate agency and, even during the pendency of the investigation, a writ petition had been filed by the victims father in 2013. The appellants say that it was a high profile case which was widely reported in the media and there was substantial pressure on the investigating agency to look into all aspects of the matter. Further, the victims father appealed to the Chief Minister which resulted in the Chief Minister requiring the matter to be looked into. A petition was also carried to the State Human Rights Commission, which issued certain directions to the investigating agency.

7. The appellants say that during pendency of the writ petition filed by the victims father, certain directions were issued from time to time by the writ court. The appellants attempt to indicate that, in such circumstances, it would be inconceivable that the investigation was conducted in a shoddy manner or to shield any person or to not look into all aspects of the matter. The appellants complain that after the hearing was concluded, the Single Bench called for the case diary and based on the assessment of the investigation, certain conclusions were arrived at which may not have been justified on facts.

8. In particular, the appellants are critical of some of the observations made in the judgment impugned to the effect that various aspects had not been investigated into by the investigating agency. The appellants also point out that upon the final report being filed before the criminal court, a protest petition was filed by the victims father but no further steps were taken for re- investigation.

9. It is also evident that polygraph tests were conducted on the five appellants in Gandhinagar, Gujarat and brain-mapping was also resorted to. Both the polygraph tests and the brain-mapping conducted on the appellant nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 reveal that truthful answers had been given and there was no attempt at deceit by such persons. The appellants submit that they have been hounded since the death of the victim in 2011 and it would be embarrassing and extremely inconvenient to go through the entire process again 10 years after the incident when the trail may have almost frozen.

10. The appellants refer to a judgment reported at (2010) 3 SCC 571 (State of West Bengal vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal) for the word of caution therein. The judgment instructs that an investigation by the CBI should not be directed for the mere asking and, though the High Court may have the power to direct such investigation, the same must be cautiously and sparingly exercised.

11. A further judgment reported at (2002) 5 SCC 521 (Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. vs Sahngoo Ram Arya) is placed for the enunciation of the principle that it was not sufficient to merely have the materials in the pleadings to demonstrate that there was any need for a further enquiry, a prima facie view in such regard ought to be formed before a fresh enquiry or investigation is directed.

12. It is in the light of the tests as laid down by the Supreme Court in the second of the two judgments cited, the writ court proceeded to look into the matter. There are