Uttarakhand HC orders SIT probe into Banbhoolpura riot victim's death

Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered an SIT probe into the death of Faheem who died of a gunshot wound during the Banbhoolpura riots in Haldwani in February, 2024.

A division bench of Chief Justice Guhanathan Narendar and Justice Alok Mehra also ordered the transfer of Neeraj Bhakuni who was the investigating officer in the case out of the district for a shoddy investigation.

The court was acting on a PIL seeking a CBI probe into Faheem's death on June 18.

The PIL filed by the victim's brother Parvez alleged no investigation was carried into the case despite an order to this effect by the chief judicial magistrate's (CJM) court.

The CJM of Nainital on May 6, 2024 directed the police to register a case against unknown persons, investigate it and submit a report to the court, the PIL said.

It was alleged that the police failed to comply and did not conduct any investigation.

The petitioner, as a result, sought a CBI probe into the incident and security for the family.

Faheem died from a gunshot injury during the Banbhoolpura violence on February 8, 2024.

Despite multiple complaints to the police and administration, no investigation was carried out, nor was any FIR registered, the PIL said.

Faheem’s death was not a result of the violence itself, but due to being shot by unknown individuals, it said.

During a previous hearing, the high court made stern remarks in the manner the investigation was carried out.

Even the word "shocking" falls short for the police report, it said.

This must be a unique and possibly the only investigation report of its kind in the country in which the investigating officer acted as a ballistic expert, defense counsel, and judge, it added.

The court further said the investigating officer submitted the final report himself and decided the fate of the case he investigated.

It was also stated to be the "only case in the country" in which the investigating officer ignored the statements of eyewitnesses who saw armed assailants, and instead relied on the statements of non-eyewitnesses to file a closure report.

The high court then decided to closely monitor the case.