New Delhi: CBI on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking modification of an order staying its ongoing probe in the sensational Bulandshahr gangrape case, saying it may cause "disappearance of material evidences" besides enabling six accused to seek statutory bail.
The apex court had on 29 August taken note of the controversial remarks of UP Minister Azam Khan that the gangrape case was a "political conspiracy", while staying the CBI probe in the case. It had also asked whether the State should stop people holding high offices from making such comments on heinous crimes.
In a plea filed by CBI SP Abhishek Dular, the probe agency sought its impleadment as a party to the petition filed by the husband and father of the rape survivors, a mother-daughter duo.
"That it is respectfully reiterated that running period of 90 days permitted under 167 of CrPC for completion of investigation, would not get stopped and would also cause prejudice to the investigation and after the expiry of 90 days would extend to these suspects, a right to claim release," the plea said.
"That on behalf of the CBI, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that continuation of stay of investigation by the CBI may result in disappearance of material evidence and may cause prejudice to the conduct of this case," it said.
While seeking modification of the order passed by a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan, the probe agency sought permission to continue its probe in the case. The FIR initially was lodged by the Uttar Pradesh police under various provisions on July 30. CBI had re-registered the offence on August 18 in pursuance of the Allahabad High Court order.
The brutal incident had happened on the night of 29 July when a group of highway robbers stopped the car of a Noida-based family and sexually assaulted the woman and her daughter after dragging them out of the vehicle at gun-point.
The apex court had also appointed jurist and senior lawyer F S Nariman as amicus curiae (friend of the court), as it framed some legal questions with regard to freedom of speech and expression and probable impact of statements of those holding high offices on free and fair probe in heinous cases like this.