SC stays HC order for CBI probe into Falta police torture case

Kolkata: Supreme Court on Monday stayed Calcutta High Court's order for a CBI probe into the alleged custodial torture of a woman at Falta police station in Sept. An HC single bench had on Oct 8 called for a CBI investigation, which was upheld by a division bench on Nov 6.
SC, instead, asked the state to submit a list of seven Bengal-cadre IPS officers who come from other states, including five women.The apex court will hear the case on Nov 18.
Mentioned urgently before a bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Gopal Sankarnarayan argued that the HC directions "for transfer of investigation to CBI are being passed in a routine manner without following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court".
Sibal also argued that the allegations of custodial torture seemed to be "fictitious and concocted" since the victims never raised any complaint before the trial court during their productions or bail hearings. Sibal said the state "in all fairness" had constituted a two-member Special Enquiry Team (SET) to examine the allegations. The Supreme Court also stayed the SET probe.
Bengal's senior standing counsel in SC, Sanjay Basu, said: "The apex court considered the state submissions and observed that the said allegations need to be examined to find out whether the accused persons are victims of custodial torture at all."
An FIR had been lodged at Falta police station on Sept 4 under BNS, Pocso and the IT Act against one Krishna Maji for making rape threats to the child of a Trinamool Congress MP. One Shrabanti Marik, lodging the complaint, also provided a video clip which purportedly showed two women instigating Maji. The two women, Rebeka Khatun Molla and Rama Das, were arrested on Sept 7. They later moved Calcutta High Court alleging custodial torture.
While hearing the case earlier this month, an HC division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya upheld the order for a CBI investigation after it observed that there was a "discrepancy" in the recordings of two state authorities — namely the medical superintendent of Diamond Harbour sub-correctional home and the medical officer of Diamond Harbour Medical College and Hospital — after the petitioner's examination.
The CJ had also expressed surprise over the arrest of the petitioner in the first place when she had not made any remark against the minor and was not named in the FIR. The bench noted that sections of the Pocso Act were slapped on her for "abetting" someone's remark. "Is this a ground for arrest?" he said.