Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Shivank Singh,  rejected the closure report filed by the CBI, stating that the Court was of the view that a prima facie case was made out. And resultantly, took cognizance under Section  120B r/w 302, 201 as well as substantive offenses under Sections 302, 201 of the Penal Code, 1860.
 In the present case, a first-year MBBS student, Neeraj Bhadana, allegedly committed suicide by jumping from the 5th floor of the hostel building on 6-7-2013, in the college premises of Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad. Subsequently, on 7-7-2013, an FIR was lodged with the local police against unknown persons. On 10-07-2013, a further complaint was lodged by the complainant (father) with the allegations against the administration (with specific names) including the Vice-Chancellor, students/hostel-mates for subjecting the deceased to sexual exploitation. The investigation was initiated by the local police, later it went to the CB CID and thereafter was transferred to CBI on 25-07-2013.
 Now the question was on the dubious and mysterious circumstances in which the victim died and the different factual matrix that ensued further.
 During the investigation, some startling revelations were made which not only outright contradicted the different versions but also the narration of the cause.  Thereby, raising questions on the veracity of the doctor who treated the deceased in the emergency ward and had seen the deceased ‘gasping’, along with the authorities while the medical evidence and the treatment papers spoke differently.  Notably, the doctors who conducted the post mortem made observations of Ante-mortem injuries, torn hymen, ‘asphyxia as a result of smothering’.  The Court took note of the many fallacies, on the basis of which the CBI wanted the closure report to be treated as “untraced”. The logic of being “untraced” was also dealt with at length in detailed order.
 The findings were made differently for incriminating the students involved and the College authorities. After a conjunctive reading of the material and documents so placed, the Court observed that the “…victim was killed by the way of smothering and was thrown from the building…”. Moreover, the Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Test (BEOS), and the inconsistent versions of the students were taken note of, contending that they had seen her either falling or heard her voice. While there were enough witnesses recorded by the CBI stating that the deceased was “cold and numb when it fell”. The Court then made pertinent observations based on the witnesses, stating, “Such natural witnesses have no motive to state falsely. The only witness who has said that the victim was gasping was the staff/officials of Teerthankar Mahaveer University”. Further in regards to the College authorities, it was concluded that they “prepared false records under some pressure” and held that “the officials have participated in the destruction of evidence. Had it been the involvement of only students in the alleged murder, then, in that case, the officials (wardens, etc.) would not have participated…”.
 The present case was dealt with by the Court in profundity, from an abyss to a sky-scraping detail. The Court while perusing the documents and appreciating the pieces of evidence, considered the case to be a classic example of “people may lie, but circumstances cannot”. The Court also made a remark on the investigation officer for not recording the legitimate findings in the closure report, “for the reasons, best known to IO” and found it hard to believe why no investigation was done on crucial points, which the Court later enumerated in the detailed summon order. The Court exclaimed, “this Court is constrained to say that the investigation in the present case is bereft of any logic, rationale and bonafide approach”.