Patna, March 2 – A Special CBI Court in Patna on Monday rejected the bail plea of Manish Ranjan, the owner of the Shambhu Girls Hostel building, in connection with the death of a NEET aspirant in the Bihar capital.
The hearing lasted for nearly two and a half hours, during which a heated exchange reportedly took place between the lawyers representing the victim's family and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The victim's lawyers again alleged negligence and lapses in the investigation.
The NEET aspirant, originally from the Jehanabad district, was found unconscious at the Shambhu Girls Hostel in the Chitragupt Nagar area of Patna on January 6. She was initially admitted to a hospital and later transferred to a private medical facility, where she succumbed to her injuries on January 11.
The family of the deceased student alleged that she had been raped and murdered, while the Patna Police initially classified the case as a suicide.
However, the post-mortem examination and forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports ruled out the possibility of suicide and stated that sexual assault could not be ruled out.
Following mounting public outrage and political pressure, the case was subsequently transferred to the CBI for further investigation.
During a previous hearing on February 28, the Special CBI Court reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of the investigation and questioned the investigating agency about the legal provisions invoked in the case.
The court raised concerns about why the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act had not been invoked, describing the matter as sensitive and serious in nature.
It was observed that the investigation was primarily proceeding under sections related to attempted murder, which the court indicated might not adequately reflect the gravity and nature of the allegations.
The judge sought clarification from the CBI regarding the legal basis for the charges framed so far and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation.
The court also asked what specific material had emerged against the accused during the recent phase of the probe and sought justification for his continued judicial custody in the absence of any additional substantive evidence being placed on record.
The matter remains under investigation.
