Madras High Court Transfers Probe In BSP Leader Armstrong's Murder Case To CBI

Allowing a petition filed by Armstrong's brother, Justice P Velmurugan has directed the CBI to file the chargesheet within 6 months.

The court noted that the investigation carried out by the State police did not inspire much confidence, and to ensure justice and to maintain public confidence, it was to transfer the investigation to the CBI for a free, fair, and impartial inquiry. 

"While it is acknowledged that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet filed, the lapses outlined above, together with serious doubts regarding the thoroughness and impartiality of the inquiry, necessitate intervention by this Court to ensure justice and maintain public confidence...The investigation is accordingly transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a free, fair, and impartial inquiry, independent of media, political influence, or local pressure," the court said. 

Armstrong's brother, Keynos, had sought a CBI probe, alleging that there were major shortcomings in the investigation being carried out by the state police. He had also raised doubts about an impartial investigation being conducted in the case. It was submitted that the police had failed to investigate the political angle in the case. It was submitted that since Armstrong was a Dalit Rights Activist, there was a probability that he would face opposition from other vested interests.

It was also argued that though eye witnesses had stated that they could identify Armstrong's assailants, no identification parade had been carried out in the case, which raises suspicion about the conduct of the police. 

It was also submitted that though the FIR had named only 8 assailants, who were allegedly disguised as food delivery agents, the chargesheet that was filed by the police had named 30 persons as accused in the case.

The police, on the other hand, had opposed the plea and submitted that 27 persons had already been arrested in the case. It was also submitted that since the images of the accused persons were available from the CCTV footage from the place of occurrence, an identification parade was not conducted in the case. 

The court, however, criticised this approach of the police and questioned whether it was conducting a trial based on media reports. The court had termed it a classic example of procedural failure.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General IV Assisted by Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: K Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong v. Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 323

Case NO. Crl OP 18671 of 2025