Violinist Balabhaskar’s Death: Kerala High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction With CBI's Probe, Trial Deferred

During the hearing, the Court remarked that the CBI has not properly enquired Prakash Thampi, a suspect in the case who acted as a manager to the deceased. The Court noted that it was the duty of the CBI to probe into the matter with a suspicious mind before coming to the conclusion that it was only a road accident.

Violinist Bhalabhasker and his family met with a car accident during the early hours of September 25, 2018 while returning from a temple. His daughter died on the spot and Bhalabhasker succumbed to his injuries on October 2 that year. Since the parents opposed the Police report concluding the incident to be a mere road accident, the probe was handed over to CBI on July 27, 2020, which filed a final report in January 2021.

CBI has booked the car's driver Arjun for rash and negligent driving but has ruled out any external influence to cause planned homicide.

Petitioners allege that the CBI has not conducted the investigation properly and has submitted the final charge sheet in a haste manner. After their plea for further investigation was dismissed by the Magistrate Court at Thiruvananthapuram, the present criminal revision petitions have been preferred. The pleas state that CBI concluded the probe involving large number of witnesses and voluminous records within a span of just four months. It reads thus,

“There were materials available before the investigating officer to the effect pointing out the involvement of a series of persons who are also parties to gold smuggling and other criminal activities, but the investigating officer has not properly questioned any of these witnesses/potential accused during the course of investigation. The investigation was concluded in a haste and suppressing several material facts which are directly connected to the incident.”

Advocate T M Raman Kartha appeared for the revision petitioners and Senior Counsel Dr. K.P Satheesan appeared on behalf of the investigating officers.

The court today enquired as to why Prakash Thampi was controlling the medical treatments given to Bhalabhaskar while he was undergoing treatment and as to how he came in possession of Bhalabhaskar’s mobile phone that was in the police custody after the accident. It raised suspicion on the authority of Prakash Thampi in collecting the mobile phone of Bhalabhaskar from the police custody and answering calls. The Court also considered the contradictory statements given by Arjun, who was driving the car during the accident. The Court further examined the call records of the witnesses.

The Court mentioned that it does not want to stall the trial, however it was appropriate to defer the proceedings for the time being.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 7^.

Case title: K.C. Unni v Central Bureau Of Investigation, Soby George v Central Bureau Of Investigation,

Case number: Crl.Rev.Pet 608/ 2022, Crl.Rev.Pet 268/ 2023