Patna: The investigation into the death of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant in Patna has come under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report and sought answers on key aspects of the probe, including the handling of forensic and technical evidence.
On October 13, Special POCSO Judge Rajiv Ranjan Raman raised questions about the investigation and sought responses from the CBI. According to reports, the court framed 68 questions for the agency and 39 questions for the student’s mother. The next hearing is scheduled for November 6. The CBI filed its closure report on October 6, stating that it had not found sufficient evidence against any individual to proceed with prosecution. The court has yet to decide on the report.
The case has drawn comparisons with the 1999 deaths of Shilpi Jain and Gautam Singh in Patna, another high-profile case in which the CBI concluded after a lengthy investigation that the deaths were suicides. The families disputed that conclusion. In both cases, questions have been raised about the collection and interpretation of evidence, although the circumstances and findings in the two investigations are different.
NEET aspirant found unconscious in hostel room
The NEET aspirant, who was from Jehanabad and living at Shambhu Girls’ Hostel in Patna, was found unconscious in her room on January 6, 2026. She was taken to hospital for treatment but died on January 11.
Her father subsequently lodged a police complaint alleging that she had suffered injuries and raising the possibility of sexual assault. The post-mortem findings did not rule out sexual violence, prompting questions about the circumstances of her death and the initial police response.
Police initially suggested that the student had died after consuming an excessive dose of sleeping pills. Following public protests and criticism of the investigation, the Bihar government transferred the case to the CBI in February 2026.
The CBI examined forensic evidence, questioned people connected with the case and conducted DNA testing. Reports state that around 30 DNA samples were examined, but none matched the DNA profile obtained from semen traces found on the student’s clothing.
The agency eventually filed a closure report, saying it had not found sufficient evidence to prosecute any individual. The report’s submission, however, has not ended the legal proceedings.
Court questions evidence collection and investigation
During the October 13 hearing, the special POCSO court questioned aspects of the investigation, including the collection of CCTV footage and other technical evidence. The court also sought explanations from investigating officers regarding the direction and handling of the probe.
The student’s family has challenged the closure report. According to the account provided by the family, there were delays in securing the hostel premises and collecting evidence. The family has also alleged that clothing carrying possible forensic evidence was discarded by a doctor at a hospital. These allegations require independent verification and should not be treated as established findings.
The family’s objections and the court’s questions have brought the handling of evidence back into focus. Whether the closure report is accepted, rejected or followed by further investigation will be determined through the judicial process.
Shilpi-Gautam deaths: CBI concluded suicide after years of investigation
The deaths of Shilpi Jain and Gautam Singh in July 1999 became one of Bihar’s most controversial criminal cases. Their bodies were found in a car inside a garage in Patna on July 3, 1999.
The initial police response attracted criticism, and the case was subsequently transferred to the CBI amid public protests and demands for an independent investigation.
During its investigation, the CBI examined forensic evidence, including material recovered from Shilpi’s clothing. A forensic examination reportedly detected seminal stains from more than one person, but investigators were unable to establish the identity of the unidentified contributor.
The CBI’s final report, submitted in 2003 after approximately four years of investigation, concluded that Shilpi and Gautam had died by suicide after consuming poison. The agency said it had found no evidence establishing that they had been murdered. Shilpi’s family disputed the conclusion and alleged shortcomings in the investigation.
The historical case remains relevant to discussions about investigative accountability because the official conclusion did not resolve the family’s objections.
Questions over early police action
In the NEET aspirant’s case, questions have also been raised about the time taken to secure the hostel room and collect potential evidence. The family and other critics have questioned whether the initial investigation adequately examined all possible explanations for the student’s condition and death.
The circumstances of the two cases are not identical, and the findings of the Shilpi-Gautam investigation cannot establish what happened to the NEET aspirant. However, both cases have involved disputed investigative conclusions and demands for answers from the families.
The immediate question in the NEET aspirant’s case is whether the CBI can adequately explain its findings in response to the court’s questions. The next hearing on November 6 is expected to be an important stage in determining how the court proceeds with the closure report.
