Bail Plea Rejected for Hostel Owner in NEET Aspirant's Death Case
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
Patna, March 2 (NationPress) - A Special CBI Court in Patna has denied the bail request of Manish Ranjan, the proprietor of the Shambhu Girls Hostel, in relation to the tragic death of a NEET aspirant in Bihar's capital.
The proceedings extended for nearly two and a half hours, characterized by a passionate dialogue between the attorney representing the victim's family and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The victim's legal representative reiterated accusations of negligence and shortcomings in the investigative process.
The NEET candidate, hailing from Jehanabad district, was discovered unconscious at the Shambhu Girls Hostel on January 6. She was initially taken to a hospital and subsequently moved to a private medical facility, where she tragically passed away from her injuries on January 11.
The family of the deceased has claimed that she was raped and murdered, while the initial ruling by the Patna Police designated the incident as a suicide.
Nevertheless, the results of the post-mortem and forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports dismissed the suicide theory, indicating that sexual assault was a possibility.
In response to escalating public outrage and political intervention, the case was transferred to the CBI for a more thorough investigation.
During a prior hearing on February 28, the Special CBI Court expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation's progress and inquired about the legal frameworks being applied to the case.
The court questioned the omission of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, labeling the situation as sensitive and serious.
It was noted that the investigation primarily focused on charges related to attempted murder, which the court suggested might not fully encapsulate the severity of the allegations.
The judge requested the CBI to clarify the legal grounds for the charges formulated thus far and the evidence gathered during the investigation.
Additionally, the court sought to know what specific evidence had emerged against the accused in the latest phase of the investigation, demanding justification for his ongoing judicial custody in the absence of significant new evidence.
The investigation continues.