CHAPTER 4 matter and did not make an honest effort to unravel the truth. Himanshu Pandey, owner of motorcycle No. UP 65 Z 3169 was examined by CB CID during inquiry. He stated that he had been robbed of his motorcycle on 22.5.2006 at gun point but, did not make any report to the police. He further stated that after the alleged encounter, he made an application to the court for custody of the motorcycle. In the application before the court, he stated that the motorcycle had been snatched from him by the police on 22.5.2006 and later on the motorcycle was planted at the scene of the encounter. He explained further that he had so written in the application on the advice of his lawyer. CB CID is considered to be an independent agency. When a matter is entrusted to it for investigation, it is expected that the investigation will be efficient and fair. In the instant case, however, we see that the investigation by CB CID lacked the element of fairness. As a matter of fact, it is nothing but an attempt to hush up the matter. It is said that “man may tell lie, but documents do not”. Himanshu Pandey stated in his application before the court that the motorcycle had been snatched from him by policemen and that the same had been planted at the place of alleged encounter. This application was completely ignored by the investigating agency. Instead of relying on the application, CB CID obtained an explanation from Himanshu Pandey to the effect that the contents of the application were written on the advice of a lawyer. Such explanation could have been believed only by a naïve person. If we go by the contents of the application made by Himanshu Pandey before the court, the very foundation of the police story is knocked out. In view of the above observation, we are unable to accept the investigation report of CB CID. The statement of Himanshu Pandey leaves no doubt that the motorcycle which the deceased Budhesh Mishra and his companion are stated to be riding at the time of the alleged encounter was in fact snatched from Himanshu Pandey by the police themselves and later on it was planted at the place of occurrence. The police story that two motorcycle borne criminals were seen in suspicious circumstances and were chased by the police stands completely discredited. We are convinced that the encounter was fake. A notice be, therefore, issued to the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh requiring it to show cause why monetary relief u/s 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 be not recommended to be paid to the next of kin of deceased Budhesh Mishra. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh shall respond to the notice within six weeks” National Human Right Commission Annual Report - 2014-2015 55