The Bench postponed the hearing to September 4, when it will take up another petition filed by 355 Army men challenging registration of FIRs against them in connection with operations in Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) is in force. It also dispensed with the presence of the CBI Director for the next date of hearing. These Army men had sought a direction to declare illegal any probe against them in areas covered under Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). They challenged dilution of AFSPA contending that military operations against insurgency would be adversely affected by such probe against Army men. As amicus curiae talked about 'some disconnect' in getting documents by CBI from the Army, Attorney-General KK Venugopal said initially there were some issues regarding handing over of documents but now the CBI director has said all the relevant documents were with the SIT. In all there were 52 cases of fake encounter killings but the number came down to 41 as there was some duplication. The CBI SIT has completed probe only in 7 cases so far. The CBI Director told the Bench that investigation into 20 more cases will be completed by the end of December. The Supreme Court had in July 2017 directed a CBI probe into alleged extra-judicial killings by Army, Assam Rifles and Manipur Police in the insurgency-hit state. It had asked the CBI Director to appoint an SIT to conduct the probe into the alleged killings. The order had come on a PIL seeking probe and compensation in the alleged 1,528 extra-judicial killings in Manipur between 2000 and 2012 by security forces. On behalf of the PIL petitioner, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves had on the last date requested the court to disband the CBI SIT as it was not doing its duty. He wanted the Bench to appoint an SIT of its own to take over the probe into all the cases of extra-judicial killings in Manipur. The Bench postponed the hearing to September 4, when it will take up another petition filed by 355 Army men challenging registration of FIRs against them in connection with operations in Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) is in force. It also dispensed with the presence of the CBI Director for the next date of hearing. These Army men had sought a direction to declare illegal any probe against them in areas covered under Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). They challenged dilution of AFSPA contending that military operations against insurgency would be adversely affected by such probe against Army men. As amicus curiae talked about 'some disconnect' in getting documents by