Amitava Roy JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant, widow of slain Raju Pal, who at his death was a sitting M.L.A. of Uttar Pradesh State Assembly, is before this Court in her relentless pursuit for securing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the stirring incident of murderous attack on her husband, snuffing their a week old marital tie. This is the Appellant's second outing before this forum, she having been relegated earlier to the High Court, to seek the remedy at the first instance. By the decision impugned, the High Court has declined the relief sought for.
3. We have heard Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and Mr. Manoj Goel, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
4. The eventful factual backdrop is outlined by the available pleadings. First the facts as narrated by the Appellant. In the bye-elections to the vacant seat of Allahabad (West) State Assembly, held in the month of October 2004, the same having been vacated on the resignation of its incumbent Atiqe Ahmed, Respondent No. 4, he having been elected as a Member of Parliament from Phoolpur constituency, Allahabad, the Appellant's husband was elected thereto by defeating the nearest contender Mohd. Ashraf set-up by the Samajwadi Party. Whereas the Appellant's husband as the candidate of the Bahujan Samaj Party (for short hereinafter referred to as "BSP.") secured 70537 votes against 65713 votes polled by the Respondent No. 5, the other candidates representing the Congress and Bhartiya Janta Party fared very poorly in comparison. According to the Appellant, since his defeat, Moh. Ashraf @ Khalid Azeem the Respondent No. 5, along with his brother Atiqe Ahmed Respondent No. 4 as well as the then Chief Minister of the State had taken the set-back to be a matter of personal humiliation, defeat and insult so much so that the Respondent No. 4 declared in public that the candidate elected would not be able to hold the seat for long. It has been alleged by the Appellant that subsequent thereto, continuous attempts were made to eliminate Raju Pal and that too with the connivance of the local police and at the instigation of the Respondent No. 4. The Appellant has asserted that as a consequence, the family members and the supporters of her husband very often were assaulted and subjected to harassment by arrests by the police and hired goons engaged by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that their property and personal belongings were even destroyed.
5. The Appellant alleged as well that the Respondent No. 5 was a history sheeter against whom several cases had been lodged involving the offence of murder, but on account of his political clout and the following of anti-social elements, no witness would even dare to give evidence of his nefarious activities. This was more so, according to the Appellant, as he enjoyed police patronage and protection. The Appellant stated that after the election of her husband as the Member of the Legislative Assembly on 16.10.2004, three abortive attempts were made on his life and the properties belonging to him and his close relatives were ransacked and taken away. The Appellant mentioned that the la........