1. In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the younger brother of one Sampath (aged 26 years) who died in police custody in the night of 29-3-2010 , seeks a direction from this Court to the 4th respondent, namely the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, ("C.B.I." for short), New Delhito investigate Crime No. 251 of 2010 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad by an efficient officer of the C.B.I.

2. According to the petitioner deceased Sampath who had nothing to do with the murder of Sheela on 23.3.2010 at Puthoor in Palakkad was taken into custody by the Police on 28.3.2010 midnight from the house of his sister at Coimbatore and brutally tortured to death while in Police custody and the present investigation is only an "eye-wash" to salvage the bigwigs in the State Police who are the real culprits. It is the case of the petitioner that the on-going investigation is influenced by unseen hands with the aim of sabotaging the real truth coming out. The petitioner, therefore, requests that the investigation be entrusted with an efficient officer of the CBI. Respondents 1 and 2 are the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary respectively. The 3rd respondent is the Director General of Police, Kerala. The 4th respondent is the Director, C.B.I, New Delhi. The 5th respondent is the present Investigating Officer under the Crime Branch Police (CB CID), Kerala.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a joint counter-affidavit and the 5th respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. While the counter-affidavit dated 21.5.2010 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 (State of Kerala) does not in express terms admit that the custodial death of Sampath was as a result of torture by the team of Police officers who had interrogated him, the counter affidavit dated 21.5.2010 filed by the 5th respondent has clearly admitted in no unmistakable terms that Sampath died as a result of continuous torture while in the Police custody of a team of Police Officers at the River Side Cottage, Malampuzha. Both counter-affidavits, however, maintain that the investigation of Sheela murder case has revealed that Sampath was the prime accused in that case that the stolen articles have been subsequently recovered from the suspects and that the investigation of the Sampath murder case is carried on impartially, effectively and that there is no necessity for entrusting the said investigation with the CBI, Two Sub Inspectors and 10 lower level police officers have already been arrayed as the accused in the Sampath murder case. All of them are absconding and they could not be arrested. The Dy.S.P. and the Circle Inspector have also been implicated and they have been placed under suspension.

4. I heard Advocate Sri.Vijayabhanu, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as his father Raman (who was impleaded as the Addl.6th respondent as per the order passed in I.A.No.6359/2010); Advocate Sri.K.K.Raveendranath, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor (who is also the Addl. Director General of Prosecutions) and Advocate Sri.K.Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for deceased Sheela's mother, Karthiayani who was impleaded as the Addl.7th respondent as per the order passed in I.A.No.6338/2010. I also perused the case diary pertaining to the case.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER

5. Advocate Sri.Vijaya Bhanu appearing for the petitioner and his father made the following submissions before me:-Deceased Sheela is the sister of a senior officer in the State Tourism Department of which the Minister concerned is none other than the Home Minister. There has been high level interferences in the investigation of Crime No.246/2010 (Sheela murder case). The man hunt for the culprits in Sheela murder case was planned and engineered by none other than the Superintendent of Police who was physically present in civil dress at the Police Commissioner's Office, C