Kanpur businessman's death: SC issues notice to Centre, UP govt on plea made by victim's wife
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government on a plea made by Kanpur businessman Manish Gupta's wife seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into her husband's death case.
- Country:
- India
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government on a plea made by Kanpur businessman Manish Gupta's wife seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into her husband's death case. The 36-year-old businessman died after being allegedly assaulted by the police at a Gorakhpur hotel during a raid last month.
A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna sought response from the Centre and UP government on the plea and posted the matter for hearing on November 12. Meenakshi Gupta's lawyer said the Uttar Pradesh government had recommended the case for the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), however, the agency was yet to take over the probe.
The Uttar Pradesh government had recommended a CBI investigation into the case earlier in October. A Special Investigation Team is carrying on the probe till the CBI takes over.
The petitioner has prayed that the trial should be conducted by the CBI court in Delhi as carrying the trial within Uttar Pradesh would not be conducive to a fair trial and a just outcome as the accused are powerful and well-connected police personnel. (ANI)
(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
ALSO READ
Uttar Pradesh government to decide over dropping charges against state Congress chief Ajay Rai after LS polls
Woman sexually assaulted in Uttar Pradesh village, police file FIR
BJP fields Neeraj Shekhar, son of former PM Chandrashekhar from Balia Lok Sabha seat in Uttar Pradesh.
Lok Sabha elections: Women and Divyang employees to operate polling booths in Uttarakhand
SC raps Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for not taking action against Patanjali Ayurved in misleading advertisement case.