The bench sought to know from Additional Advocate General D Srinivas about the stage of investigation pertaining to the case.
"After the first information report has been registered, whether the IO examined any person? Is anybody arrested or questioned," it asked.
The AAG informed the bench that preliminary steps were undertaken with regard to the matter. However, the complainant (Muniyammal and others) refused to record their statements before the police.
"A Special Investigation Team has been constituted under an IG-rank officer to probe the incident," the AAG said.
Defence counsel V Raghunath submitted before the court that the FIR was registered only on April 14 and that too against ‘unknown’ STF personnel, which he asserted ‘was a malicious intention to screen (shelter or protect) the culprits’.
To this, the court observed: "At this stage (FIR against) the ‘unknown’ is appropriate. If you have any names (of those involved in the firing), tell the names. You can make a statement before magistrate."
When defence counsel insisted on the need for a CBI probe into the case, the bench responded, "You have not produced any (biased) material to substantiate the allegation. Therefore, at this stage we are not satisfied...unless you are in a position to establish that the IO is not conducting investigation impartially."
"Mere oral statement on questioning or doubting investigation won't do. Our objective is impartial, fair and independent investigation," the bench said, noting that under the court's monitoring even an "ordinary IO can do miracles."
"You (IO) must proceed with investigation. Let us see progress. How investigation has progressed. We direct the IO to produce case diary of investigation," the bench added.
Air safety measures being compromised in India: Regulator
Everybody Loves Raymond star Sawyer Sweeten passes away
How Australia's World Cup heroes Maxwell, Johnson are struggling
Infosys Q4 net up 3.5%; revenue guidance below industry average