In this application filed by the Petitioner (Murukeshan), in the above Writ Petition he seeks a direction to the 4th respondent i.e Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (“C.B.I”. for short) to submit a detailed report regarding the investigation so far conducted and produce the entire case diary. The petitioner alleges that there is a conscious attempt to suppress the involvement of two superior police officers behind the murder of the petitioner’s younger brother Sampath.

2. This case popularly known as Sampath Murder Case pertains to the brutal murder of one Sampath aged 26 years in the night of 29-3-2010 after he was taken into police custody on a suspicion that he was the prime accused in Sheela Murder Case. In the above Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein, it was conceded before this Court that Sampath was done away with as a result of continuous torture while in the custody of the State police. As per judgment dated 25-5-2010 this Court entrusted the investigation with the C.B.I. mainly for the reason that it was not desirable that the State police continues with the investigation of a case in which the accused persons are members of the State Police. While disposing of the Writ Petition this Court inter alia directed as follows:

“Every person directly or indirectly involved in the custodial torture of Sampath, howsoever high he may be, shall be brought to justice.”

This Court expects the C.B.I to follow the above direction in letter and spirit. But according to the petitioner there has been interference from the higher echelons of the

C.B.I. against the arraignment of two Senior I.P.S. Officers of the State Police as accused in this case.

3. I have perused the Case Diary. Pursuant to the directions of this Court Sri. V.A. Mohan, Supdt. Of Police, C.B.I., SCB, Thiruvananthapuram constituted an investigation team with one S. Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of Police, CBI, SCB, TVPM, as the Chief Investigating Officer and one K.K. Rajan, Sub Inspector S.P. Nair Constable and Loule Paul, Constable, as members. The above team has done excellent work. But eyebrows were raised at the higher level in the C.B.I when the Chief Investigating Officer sought permission to add to the array of accused two I.P.S. Officers of the State police. It appears that certain officers of the C.B.I. got afflicted by the “birds of the same feather syndrome” and started finding fault with the Chief Investigating Officer who was served with a few memo. There has even been an attempt to trivialize the goonda intrusion into the house of a member of the investigating team. The suspect officer may be their batch mates, former colleagues, training mates or the like. But while investigating a murder case, no such clannish considerations should weigh with any officer worth his name. The reconstitution of the investigation team by inducting one Haridath as the Chief Investigating Officer, naturally engendered a fear in the mind of the petitioner that some attempt was afoot to deflect the course of investigation. It is that fear which has necessitated this application.

4. Those who are concerned should realise that departmental instructions and executive orders obliging the investigating officers to seek permission of the higher-ups like the Unit Chief, Head of the Branch, Head of the Zone, Director etc. for performing routine investigative functions such as registering an F.I.R., arraying a person as accused, arresting such and finally submitting final reports under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. etc. do not have any legal sanction. They are contrary to the scheme under the Cr.P.C. No such restrictions can be placed on the freedom of the investigating officer. In this context it is apposite to refer to the following observation of the Apex Court in Vineet Narain V. Union of India A.I.R 1998 S.C 889

“According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused for t