Sampath custodial death: CBI probe raises knotty questions

Arjun Raghunath
The New Indian
03 Apr 2011

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The CBI probe into the custodial death of Sampath seems to be derailing from the popular objective of bringing the real culprits before the law and instead snowballing into an internal clash within the nation’s premier investigation agency.
The ‘timely’ leaking out of the information regarding the arraigning of two IPS officers in the case as well as the differences between the CBI top brass and investigating officers over arraigning the two IPS officers, has led to a fresh stand-off within the CBI, which may prove detrimental to a fair probe into the sensational custodial death which occurred in March 2010 at Palakkad.
CBI DySP P G Haridath had filed a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Kochi on February 2 naming the former Thrissur range IG Mohammed Yasin, Palakkad former SP Vijay Sakhare and 16 others as accused in the case.
However the information got leaked out only after two months, on April 1, that too a couple of hours after the Supreme Court directed that the investigation should be carried out under the strict supervision of a CBI joint director.
This has raised many an eyebrow as it is widely believed that the information was deliberately leaked out due to the stand- off between the investigation team and the CBI higher-ups.
The investigating officers in the case had earlier stated before the High Court that they were facing threat and undue pressure from the top.
Subsequently, the court had ordered that no senior official should interfere with the investigation.
After the CBI headquarters got complaints that the probe was not progressing in the right direction, a senior SP, R R Sahayi, was deputed to review the investigation.
But the investigation officer had refused to hand over the case diary.
Subsequently, the CBI headquarters approached the Supreme Court and the court on Friday directed that the probe should be closely monitored by a joint director. The move of the investigating officer to arraign two IPS officers as accused in the case, even without taking their statements, as well as to seek arrest warrants has come as a surprise.
“In case an official is arraigned as accused in a case, the normal practice is to inform the head of the department in which the accused officer is working and proceed with the arrest. A warrant is sought only if the official is evading arrest,” police sources pointed out.
A section in the state police strongly suspects the influence of a Bangalorebased spirit mafia don on the CBI to implicate Vijay Sakhare, who is now serving as DIG in Border Security Force. Two Bangalore-based spirit smugglers were booked by Sakhare while serving as the Palakkad SP. It is pointed out that though Sampath belonged to a poor family, his family has been engaging leading lawyers both in the Supreme Court and the High Court. “How the family meets the heavy fees of these leading lawyers remain mysterious,” a police officer said.
It is also pointed out that the mobile phone records of Yasin had clearly vindicated that he had not gone to Malampuzha during the time when Sampath was subjected to custodial torture. Yasin is now serving as managing director of Kerala Police Housing Construction Corporation.
Investigating officer summoned
CBI DySP Haridath was summoned to CBI headquarters in New Delhi on Saturday.
CBI sources said that it was following the Supreme Court directive on Friday that the investigating officer was directed to report to the CBI headquarters with the case diary.
There are also unconfirmed reports that IPS officers Yasin and Sakhare are planning to approach the court against the CBI’s decision to arraign them as accused in the case.