The Kerala High Court on Thursday ordered a further investigation by the CBI into the death of violinist Balabhaskar, underlining that the previous investigation by the agency has not been ‘foolproof’ and that the doubts expressed by the victim’s parents cannot be held to be wholly bereft of any basis.

The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ordered the CBI investigator to find out if there was any conspiracy or connection between the activities of gold smuggling, the road accident on September 25, 2018 and the death of Balabhaskar. The probe has to be completed preferably within three months, the court said.

The orders came in response to criminal revision petitions filed by Balabhaskar’s father Unni and Soby George, a witness in the case.

The CBI in its final report on January 27, 2021 had concluded that Balabhaskar, an acclaimed violinist and music director, had died on account of the injuries sustained in the road accident on September 25, 2018 and Arjun K Narayanan, the driver at the time, was arrayed as the accused.

The violinist, his wife, minor daughter and Arjun, at the wheel, were travelling from Thrissur to Thiruvananthapuram in a Toyota Innova car when at around 3:30 am, the car swayed to the side and collided with a tree at Pallipuram. While his daughter died instantly, Balabhaskar succumbed to injuries at a private hospital a week later. Both Arjun and Lakshmi, the violinist’s wife, recovered from injuries.

The probe was initially handled by the local police but later handed over to the Crime Branch and subsequently the CBI on the request of Balabhaskar’s parents.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the CBI had failed to probe into various aspects of the crime and left many questions unanswered. It particularly pointed various aspects surrounding conduct of witnesses like Prakash Thampi, Vishnu Somasundaram, Arjun Narayanan and Jishnu. While Arjun has criminal antecedents including ATM thefts and criminal trespass, Thampi and Somasundaram were later arrested in a gold smuggling case and remanded to custody.

At the same time, the counsel for the central agency said it had carried out an exhaustive probe and all aspects were investigated.

The court said in its order, “As an expert investigative agency, even the slightest doubt is required to be probed into and verified. Surprisingly, such an exercise is not seen to be carried out by the CBI. The investigative agency has accepted the statements of the witnesses, who could be under a scanner of doubt and against whom suspicions were raised by the parents of the deceased, as gospel truth, without confronting them with the materials collected.”

It added, “The astuteness of an expert investigating agency ought to be reflected in leaving no stone

unturned during the probe. An inconsistency or a discrepancy, insignificant to the outside world, can, at times, be the lead for unravelling the mysteries of covert actions. To achieve this, a deep and pervasive investigation is required. The doubts expressed by the parents of Balabhaskar cannot, in the above circumstances, be held to be wholly bereft of any basis.”

“When it is felt that the investigation conducted has not been penetrating and the final report has still left several loose ends and many stones unturned, the imprimatur of a comprehensive investigation cannot be accorded by the Court.”