What was the nature of the CID probe into Rizwanur Rahman’s mysterious death? Was it an inquiry or an investigation?
The contradictory nature of the probe — as revealed by the submissions of state counsel and the Rahmans’ lawyer — prompted Justice Soumitra Pal of the high court to term the CID proceedings “illegal”, “not in accordance with the law” and “faulty”.
Criminal lawyers pointed out that an inquiry constitutes a primary fact-finding by the police, following a complaint. If the sleuths are convinced after an inquiry that the complaint is not baseless, they register a case and start an investigation.
“Witnesses could be summoned and their statements recorded only if an investigation is under way,” said a criminal lawyer.
“Advocate-general Balai Ray had repeatedly claimed in court that the CID was conducting an inquiry into Rizwanur’s death. He argued that for an inquiry, there was no need to register a murder case. But documents produced in court proved that the CID had summoned and interrogated 56 people, which it could do only during an investigation following registration of a case,” the expert added.
Lawyer Gitanath Ganguli said: “Inquiry and investigation cannot be conducted simultaneously. The government must first decide what it wants the CID to do. The CID has followed the rules of neither inquiry nor investigation. The error has prompted the judge to order a CBI probe.”
Advocate Pradip Roy said: “The government and other respondents had argued that the petition seeking a CBI probe should not be allowed as the allegations it contained were baseless. They did not clarify whether the police had called Rizwanur and his wife Priyanka Todi to Lalbazar or not.”
As the judge observed that the petition was maintainable, Roy added, he took the opportunity to hand over the probe to the CBI.
Junior standing counsel Subrata Mukhopaddhyaya, however, said: “It’s strange that the judge ruled for a CBI probe in the interim order. Such a decision should have been announced in the final verdict. It seems the judge had formed his opinion in the interim-order stage itself.”
