The court may decline requests for CBI investigation where circumstances do not warrant transferring an investigation from local police.

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

W.P (Crl) No.54 of 2026 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner, the father of the deceased, Sri.Shyju, who died on 28.10.2023 under unnatural circumstances, seeks transfer of the investigation in Crime No.1359/2023 of Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI and the learned Amicus Curiae.

3. The deceased was found dead inside a panchayat well completely filled with water. The grievance of the petitioner is that the investigation in the FIR No.1359/2023 has so far not advanced in such a manner as to unearth the truth. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the local Police attempted to pre-determine the cause of death as accidental drowning. It is further submitted that no in-depth scientific or forensic analysis was undertaken in the process of the investigation. It is submitted that the conclusion of the local Police is that the deceased fell into the well after getting intoxicated.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the postmortem report does not record the presence of alcohol in the stomach contents. It is submitted that the deceased was last seen with three of his friends. It is further submitted that the last seen together circumstances were not taken into account by the Investigating agency.

5. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is proceeding in effective manner. The Police has taken into account all the circumstances. It is further submitted that the final report in the matter has not been submitted.

6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor produced the Case Diary. This Court appointed Advocate Sri.D.Kishore as Amicus Curiae. He perused the Case Diary and submitted a preliminary report. The relevant portion of the report reads thus:

“(i) The death of the victim is due to drowning.

(ii) In order to ascertain whether the deceased died due to drowning inside the panchayat well where his body was found or in some other place, diatom test was done.

(iii) The diatom test concluded that the deceased died after falling into the Well. The chances of the deceased getting drowned in another water body is also ruled out by the Investigating Officer as it was found from the test report that the characteristic and identical diatoms were detected in the samples under item IV and VI. Item IV is the bone marrow and item VI is the water sample.

(iv) The injuries found in the body of the victim could have been caused while falling into the Well.”

7. The learned Amicus Curiae, after perusal of the Case Diary, submitted that the jurisdictional Magistrate refused to grant permission to conduct the Polygraph Test on the persons who were last found along with the deceased.

8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the persons who were last found with the deceased consented to undergo Polygraph Test. The Investigating agency is at liberty to take a decision on this aspect.

9. Having anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae, this Court is of the view that the investigation in the crime is to be transferred from the local police to a specialised agency. The petitioner prayed for entrusting the investigation to the CBI.

10. It is trite that if a citizen who is a complainant in a criminal case alleging the commission of cognizable offence against Government officials or influential persons prays before a court for a direction of investigation of the alleged offence by CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking. In State