HC move starts legal debate on CCB status

BENGALURU: The high court’s decision to stay proceedings against Mohammed Nalapad, prime accused in the cafe assault case, has triggered a debate in legal and police circles, with many saying it undermines the role of the Central Crime Branch (CCB) and questions the validity of chargesheets filed by the agency in many cases.
While a few concur with Nalapad’s line of argument that CCB is not an “authorised police station in the eyes of the law”, others feel the CCB is a specialised investigating unit established by law.
“We had this problem when Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force was constituted, but it was rectified. The CCB may have been constituted as a branch or an agency of police. But, under law, there has to be a notification under Section 2 (s) of CrPC declaring a certain place or post as a police station,” said P Prasanna Kumar, special public prosecutor for CBI and NIA. However, former DGP R Sri Kumar, who headed the Karnataka Stamp Paper Investigation Team (StampIT), said: “It is the discretion of commissioner of police to entrust investigation to a police station or any special unit set up for the purpose. CCB has a general order already passed to investigate any case and it can handle the case and file a chargesheet. This has been provided under both CrPC and Police Act. For instance, the stamp paper scam was registered by Upparpet police but the probe was entrusted to StampIT which filed multiple chargesheets.”
Additional commissioner of police (crime) Alok Kumar added: “It’s the city police commissioner who transfers criminal cases to CCB. Since it’s the direction from him, CCB is entitled to register and investigate cases.”
Police had initially booked Nalapad under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) 506 (criminal intimidation), 143 and 144 (unlawful assembly), 146 and 147 (rioting), 326 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace). Later, Section 307 (attempt to murder) was added.
Though Nalapad, who surrendered two days after the assault, applied for bail, the court rejected it, terming the act a “horrifyin incident”. Subsequently, he was released on bail.