( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-1- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

1. Pratik, aged about 38 years, S/o Vinay Kumar Singh, posted as Assistant

Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot

No.1502/B, Airport Rd., Kunwar Singh Colony, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Airport,

Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002

2. Shubham Bharti, aged about 29 years, S/o Bhola Shankar Prasad,

posted as Assistant Enforcement Officer, Directorate of Enforcement,

Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No.1502/B, Airport Rd., Kunwar Singh Colony,

P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Airport, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 … Petitioners

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Government of

Jharkhand, having office at Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O.

& P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834004

2. Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) having

office at CBI Headquarters, CGO Complex, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New

Delhi-110003

3. Officer In-Charge, Airport Police Station, having office at Airport Police

Station, P.O. Airport and P.S. Doranda, Ranchi

4. Home Secretary, Government of India, Room No.113, North Block, New

Delhi

5. Santosh Kumar, Gosai Tank Road, Jaggi Compound, Upper Chutia,

Ranchi, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand

… Respondents

-----

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G.I. (Through VC)

Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate

Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Nnagamnthu S., Sr. Advocate (Through VC)

Mr. Achyut Keshav, A.A.G.-V

Mr. Shubham Gautam, A.C. to A.A.G.-V

For Respondent No.2-CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate

For Respondent No.4-UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.

Mr. Parth Jalan, A.C. to A.S.G.I.

Mr. Ayush. A.C. to A.S.G.I.

For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate

Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate

-----

C.A.V. on 24/02/2026 Pronounced on 11/03/2026

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-2- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

This matter was mentioned on 15.01.2026 and seeing the urgency in

the matter, this matter was allowed to be listed on 16.01.2026 and on that

day, following order was passed:

“02/16.01.2026 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Kapil Sibal,

learned senior counsel for the State appearing through Video

Conferencing.

2. This criminal writ petition was mentioned yesterday by

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and seeing

the urgency in the matter, the matter was allowed to be listed

and that is how, this matter has been listed today.

3. In this criminal writ petition, following prayers have

been made:

(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/,

direction(s) for quashing the entire criminal

proceedings including the FIR being Airport PS Case No.

5 of 2026 dated 13.01.2026, instituted for the alleged

offences under Sections 109(2), 117(2), 115(2), 127(2),

351(2), 352, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which is now pending in the Court

of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(ii) Or in alternate for issuance of appropriate

writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for transferring the

investigation of the allegations made in FIR being

Airport P.S. Case No. 5 of 2026 to an independent

agency such as Central Bureau of Investigation to

conduct free and impartial investigation.

(iii) And be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,

order or direction commanding the Respondent

Authorities, specifically the Station House Officer,

Airport Police Station, to register a First Information

Report (F.I.R.) and take appropriate legal action against

the informant Santosh Kumar on the basis of the

Written Information/Report dated 13.01.2026

submitted by the Petitioner No. 1, which discloses

cognizable offences including obstruction of public

servant and fabrication of evidence, but has arbitrarily

remained unattended by the Police Authorities till date.

(iv) During the pendency of this Writ Application be

pleased to stay proceedings arising out of Airport P.S.

Case No. 05 of 2026 against the Petitioners.

(v) Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may

deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very

much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice.

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that Ranchi Zonal Office of Directorate of

Enforcement is presently handling several high-profile and

sensitive investigations involving influential political figures

and senior bureaucrats, including matters relating to Chief

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-3- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

Minister, former Minister and senior I.A.S. officers. These

investigations have wide public ramifications and are being

conducted under close judicial and public scrutiny. He further

submits that in this sensitive and high-stakes environment,

the petitioners are discharging their statutory duties strictly

in accordance with law. He then submits that petitioner no.1

is Assistant Director and petitioner no.2 is Assistant

Enforcement Officer in the office of Directorate of

Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office posted at Ranchi. He next

submits that the informant, namely, Santosh Kumar is the

principal accused in a large-scale misappropriation of

Government funds amounting to approximately Rs.23 Crores

from the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department,

Government of Jharkhand. He also submits that the ECIR

case has been registered against the said Santosh Kumar

and he was taken into custody by the police authorities and,

thereafter, he has been allowed bail. He further submits that

in absence of any summon by the Directorate of Enforcement

to the said Santosh Kumar, he suo motu appeared before the

office of Directorate of Enforcement on 12.01.2026 at about

01:20 P.M. He submits that when Santosh Kumar was talking

regarding his involvement in the siphoning of Government

funds in the Peyjal Scam, he became evasive and agitated

and in a sudden and unprovoked attempt to disrupt the

official proceedings, he picked up a glass water jug placed

on the table and voluntarily struck it against his own head,

causing a minor scalp injury before the staff present could

restrain him and, thereafter, the officers of the Directorate of

Enforcement have taken him to Sadar Hospital for treatment

and he was advised to go home. He then submits that

second medical opinion was also taken and, in this

background, Santosh Kumar has lodged the case with Airport

Police Station, which has been registered as Airport P.S. Case

No.05 of 2026 falsely alleging the case under Sections 109(2),

117(2) and other Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023. He next submits that on 15.01.2026 at around 06:00

A.M., pursuant to the late-night communication, a

substantial police presence arrived at the office premises and

sought to treat the office as a crime scene, thereby

disrupting the normal functioning of a Central Government

agency. He submits that other averments are also made in

this petition, which requires to be looked into by this Court.

He submits that prima facie it is a pre-planned tactic to

disrupt the investigation being made by the Directorate of

Enforcement wherein high-profile persons of the State are

involved and, as such, protection is needed by this Court.

5. The High Courts are very slow in passing interim

protection at the initial stage of the FIR, however, in the

facts like present one brought before the High Court, the

High Court cannot be a mute spectator, however, all these

findings can be only given once the other sides are

responded in the petition.

6. Section 67 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act

protects the Government officials if in good faith, they are

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-4- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

acting under the said Act.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners will array

the Home Secretary, Government of India as respondent

no.4 in this petition, in course of the day.

8. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the

Union of India waives notice on behalf of the Home Secretary,

Government of India.

9. In the aforesaid background, the Home Secretary,

Government of India is directed to depute either CISF or BSF

or any other para military force, whichever is suitable at the

office of the Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi.

10. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the

Union of India will communicate this order to the Home

Secretary, Government of India.

11. The S.S.P., Ranchi is also directed to look into the

security of the office of the Directorate of Enforcement,

Ranchi. It is made clear that if any untoward incident

occurred in the said office, the S.S.P., Ranchi will be held

liable for that.

12. The CCTV footage installed at the premises of the

Directorate of Enforcement shall be preserved.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners will array the

informant, namely, Santosh Kumar as respondent no.5 in this

petition, in course of the day.

14. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel has appeared suo

motu on behalf of the informant and he waives notice on

behalf of the informant, namely, Santosh Kumar. He submits

that on telephone call by one of the petitioners, the

informant has gone to the office of the Directorate of

Enforcement and his name was also registered at the time

of entry and, thereafter, he was allowed to enter into the

office of the Directorate of Enforcement. He seeks 10 days’

time to file counter-affidavit.

15. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioners

will serve two copies of the petition upon Mr. Sumeet

Gadodia, in course of the day.

16. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III assisting Mr. Kapil

Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing through Video

Conferencing, will take instruction and file counter-affidavit

within one week.

17. Let this matter appear on 09.02.2026.

18. Till the next date, there shall be stay of further

proceeding and investigation by the police in connection with

Airport P.S. Case No.05 of 2026, pending in the Court of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

19. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioners

will remove the surviving defects.

20. Office will proceed further as per the procedure.”

2. On 16.01.2026, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel had appeared

on behalf of the State through Video Conferencing and he submitted that

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-5- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

time may kindly be provided to him so that he may file counter affidavit and,

thereafter, the matter may kindly be heard.

3. On 09.02.2026, Mr. Nnagamnthu S., learned senior counsel had

appeared on behalf of the State through Video Conferencing along with Mr.

Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General of the State of Jharkhand and on that

day, they pointed out that this Bench is having no roster of this matter and in

view of that, this case may go out of the list of this Bench. On that day, Mr.

Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General was intended to file an affidavit to

that effect, however, the Court orally observed looking into the roster that the

objection as well merit of the case will be decided simultaneously.

4. In course of argument on 24.02.2026, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned

counsel appearing for respondent no.4-Union of India and Mr. Amit Kumar

Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that an I.A.

filed on behalf of the State was served upon them, however, they have taken

the said I.A. from them saying that now they are not going to file the said

I.A. and in view of that, they have handed over the said I.A. to the office of

the learned Advocate General.

5. On 17.02.2026, Mr. Nnagamnthu S., learned senior counsel appearing

for the State of Jharkhand through Video Conferencing took time to examine

the rejoinder filed by the petitioners and on that day, the matter was further

adjourned for 24.02.2026 observing that the objection as well as merit of the

case will be decided simultaneously.

6. On 24.02.2026 when the matter was taken up, Mr. Nnagamnthu S.,

learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand through Video

Conferencing pointed out that I.A. No.2655 of 2026 has been filed on behalf

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-6- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

of the State for modification of the order dated 09.02.2026. He submitted

that the said objection about roster was not noted in the order dated

09.02.2026 and in view of that, the said order may be modified/clarified by

inclusion of the said submission and, thereafter, he again pressed that the

roster is not of this Bench.

7. By way of referring his written submission, Mr. Nnagamnthu S., learned

senior counsel submitted that since objection with regard to roster of this

Bench is made, it may kindly be decided. He next submitted that there are

several cases with prayer to transfer the investigation from State police to CBI

where CBI has been added as proforma party and those cases have been

listed before another Bench and he has given instances of four criminal writ

petitions listed before another Bench and in view of that, he submitted that

this case has been erroneously listed before this Bench and, as such, this case

may go out of the list of the present Bench. He also argued to the extent that

if roster is not there of the particular Bench and it is decided by that particular

Bench, then in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said

judgment will be said to be nullity.

8. On the other hand, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the

petitioners through Video Conferencing submitted that the said objection was

not raised on the first date of listing of the present case i.e. on 16.01.2026

by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel who had appeared on that day on

behalf of the State. He next pointed out that on 09.02.2026, when this matter

was listed before this Bench, learned counsel for the State had mentioned

this matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court saying that this

matter was wrongly listed before this Bench and in view of that, proper order

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-7- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

may kindly be passed, however, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has simply asked to

go before that Bench where the matter was listed and request before the

Bench. He submitted that thereafter the said objection was taken on

09.02.2026, however, the Court orally observed on that day that seeing the

roster, the objection and merit of the case will be decided simultaneously. He

further submitted that the prayer made in I.A. No.2655 of 2026 appears to

be misconceived one as in the order dated 17.02.2026, it has already been

observed that the objection as well as merits of the case will be decided

simultaneously. By way of referring roster of this Bench, he emphatically

submitted that this Bench is having the roster and in view of that, it is rightly

listed before this Bench and this Court is only required to decide the matter.

9. The submissions made by Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for

the petitioners have been supported by Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I.

appearing for the respondent no.4-Union of India and Mr. Deepak Kumar

Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-Central Bureau of

Investigation. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. has further pointed out by

way of producing roster that this Court is having roster of Criminal Writ

relating to Delhi Police Establishment Act (CBI) and P.C. Act. He submitted

that one matter relating to CBI investigation filed by the Canara Bank being

W.P.(Cr.) No.443 of 2025 was listed before this Bench and counter affidavit

was also called in that case vide order dated 26.08.2025 and that case is

being listed before this Court and nobody has raised objection in that matter.

He submitted that in identical situation, another criminal writ petition being

W.P.(Cr.) Filing No.4238 of 2026 which is also relating to CBI investigation and

that case was listed before this Bench and certain order has been passed and,

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-8- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

in that case, also, nobody has raised any objection. On these grounds, he

submitted that this Court is having roster of such matters.

10. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for respondent

no.2-CBI further submitted that administrative powers of constitution of

Benches is there to the Chief Justices of the High Courts providing roster,

transfer of cases including part-heard cases from the board of Single Judge

to a Division Bench for disposal on being satisfied that the case involved

constitutional issues and that has been considered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand,

reported in (1998) 1 SCC 1. He also submitted that there is clear cut roster

of this case before this Bench and in view of that, this Court has rightly heard

this matter on merit.

11. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5-

informant has not raised this objection.

12. Roster notified w.e.f. 09.01.2026 and 16.02.2026, so far as this Court

is concerned, is stipulated as under:

9 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay

Kumar Dwivedi

(Monday to

Friday)

(Whole day)

. A.B.A.- Fresh filing, Orders & Admission

. Criminal Revision :- Fresh Filing, Orders,

Admission & Hearing

. A.B.A.; B.A.; Cr.M.P.; Cr.Rev. & Criminal

Writ relating to Delhi Police Establishment

Act (CBI) and P.C. Act :- Fresh Filing,

Orders, Admission & Hearing

. All matters related to Fodder Scam:- Orders,

Admission & Hearing

. Tied-up & Assigned matters

13. From reading of the above roster, it is crystal clear that this Bench has

been assigned to hear the matters like A.B.A., Criminal Revision, B.A., Cr.M.P.,

Criminal Review and Criminal Writ relating to Delhi Police Establishment Act

(CBI) and P.C. Act- fresh filing, orders, admission and hearing matters and

the matters related to fodder scam. In the present criminal writ petition, the

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-9- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

prayer (ii) is made for transferring the investigation of the allegations made

in FIR being Airport P.S. Case No.5 of 2026 to an independent agency such

as Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct free and impartial investigation.

The roster said the criminal writ relating to Delhi Police Establishment Act

(CBI) and P.C. Act, which clearly suggests that this is the roster of this Bench.

On the first date, when this matter was taken up on 16.01.2026, Mr. Kapil

Sibal, learned senior counsel had appeared on behalf of the State of

Jharkhand through Video Conferencing and he had simply requested the

Court to allow him time to file counter affidavit and, thereafter, the matter

may kindly be heard. On that day, he had not taken such objection. This Court

has not made the present petition as part-heard. The Registry of this Court

has suo motu listed the matter on different dates, as noted herein above.

14. This Court is not in habit of keeping any matter part-heard as well as

having no fascination of deciding a particular case. In this background, the

facts remain only because a senior counsel has appeared through Video

Conferencing and he has prayed that this Court should recuse to hear the

matter, the answer is simply ‘No’ as the path of recusal is very often a

convenient and a soft option when the roster is there. Furthermore, if a party

or his counsel can at length argued on the question of recusal of a Judge

before him, a new practice will start. A Judge really has no vested interest in

doing a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Article 219

of the Constitution enjoins the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of

his knowledge and judgment, perform the duties without fear or favour,

affection or ill-will while upholding the Constitution and the laws. In a case,

where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-10- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

with a view of forum hunting/Bench preference or brow-beating the Court,

then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the

oath of office. The judgments of a Judge are being criticized and who are

criticizing they are required to remember that from the nature of our office,

we cannot reply to their criticism. The Judge is required to rely on his/her

own conduct itself to be its own vindication.

15. In the case of Indore Development Authority (Recusal Matter-

5J.) v. Manohar Lal and others, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 304, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 47 as under:

“47. Recusal is not to be forced by any litigant to choose a

Bench. It is for the Judge to decide to recuse. The

embarrassment of hearing the lengthy arguments for recusal

should not be a compelling reason to recuse. The law laid

down in various decisions has compelled me not to recuse

from the case and to perform the duty irrespective of the

consequences, as nothing should come in the way of

dispensation of justice or discharge of duty as a Judge and

judicial decision-making. There is no room for prejudice or bias.

Justice has to be pure, untainted, uninfluenced by any factor,

and even decision for recusal cannot be influenced by outside

forces. However, if I recuse, it will be a dereliction of duty,

injustice to the system, and to other Judges who are or to

adorn the Bench(es) in the future. I have taken an informed

decision after considering the nitty-gritty of the points at issue,

and very importantly, my conscience. In my opinion, I would

be committing a grave blunder by recusal in the circumstances,

on the grounds prayed for, and posterity will not forgive me

down the line for setting a bad precedent. It is only for the

interest of the judiciary (which is supreme) and the system

(which is nulli secundus) that has compelled me not to recuse.”

16. In the case of Krishna Swami v. Union of India and others,

reported in (1992) 4 SCC 605, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in

paragraph 67 as under:

“67. To keep the stream of justice clean and pure, the judge

must be endowed with sterling character, impeccable integrity

and upright behaviour. Erosion thereof would undermine the

efficacy of the rule of law and the working of the Constitution

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-11- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

itself. The Judges of higher echelons, therefore, should not be

mere men of clay with all the frailties and foibles, human

failings and weak character which may be found in those in

other walks of life. The Judges of higher judiciary should be

men of fighting faith with tough fibre not susceptible to any

pressure, economic, political or any sort. The actual as well as

the apparent independence of judiciary would be transparent

only when the office holders endow those qualities which

would operate as impregnable fortress against surreptitious

attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary. In

short the behaviour of the Judge is the bastion for the people

to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the

antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law.”

17. Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly

administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The

quality in decision making is as much necessary for a Judge to command

respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary.

18. What has been discussed herein above and seeing the roster position

as noted herein above, it is crystal clear that this Court is having roster

relating to Delhi Police Establishment Act (CBI) and P.C. Act. Further, I.A.

No.2655 of 2026 appears to be misconceived one in view of the fact this Court

has already noted in the order dated 17.02.2026 that the objection as well as

merit of the case will be decided simultaneously and, as such, the objection

raised by Mr. Nnagamnthu S., learned senior counsel appearing for the State

of Jharkhand is not being accepted by this Court.

19. Accordingly, I.A. No.2655 of 2026 is dismissed.

20. On merit of the case, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the

petitioners through Video Conferencing submitted that this criminal writ

petition has been filed by the petitioners for the reliefs as prayed in the

petition, such as:

(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/, direction(s) for

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-12- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR being

Airport PS Case No. 5 of 2026 dated 13.01.2026, instituted for

the alleged offences under Sections 109(2), 117(2), 115(2),

127(2), 351(2), 352, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which is now pending in the Court of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(ii) Or in alternate for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/

direction(s) for transferring the investigation of the allegations

made in FIR being Airport P.S. Case No. 5 of 2026 to an

independent agency such as Central Bureau of Investigation to

conduct free and impartial investigation.

(iii) And be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

commanding the Respondent Authorities, specifically the Station

House Officer, Airport Police Station, to register a First

Information Report (F.I.R.) and take appropriate legal action

against the informant Santosh Kumar on the basis of the Written

Information/Report dated 13.01.2026 submitted by the

Petitioner No. 1, which discloses cognizable offences including

obstruction of public servant and fabrication of evidence, but has

arbitrarily remained unattended by the Police Authorities till date.

(iv) During the pendency of this Writ Application be pleased to stay

proceedings arising out of Airport P.S. Case No. 05 of 2026

against the Petitioners.

(v) Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and

proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-13- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

21. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioners through

Video Conferencing further submitted that Ranchi zonal office of Directorate

of Enforcement is presently handling several high-profile and sensitive

investigations involving influential political figures and senior bureaucrats,

including matters relating to Chief Minister, former Minister Shri Alamgir Alam

and senior IAS officers such as Ms. Pooja Singhal and Shri Chhavi Ranjan and

these investigations have wide public ramifications and in that environment,

the petitioner nos.1 and 2, who happened to be the Assistant Director and

Assistant Enforcement Officer of Directorate of Enforcement respectively are

discharging their duties. By way of referring paragraph 6 of the writ petition,

Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I, submitted that the informant-Santosh Kumar

is the principal accused in a large-scale misappropriation of Government funds

amounting to approximately Rs.23 Crores from the Drinking Water and

Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand. He then submitted that

Sadar P.S. Case No.562/2023 was registered against him by the State

authorities on 28.12.2023 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the

Indian Penal Code, relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery,

in which, charge-sheet has been submitted, confirming involvement of

Santosh Kumar in the systematic siphoning of public funds and pursuant to

the said scheduled offences, the Directorate of Enforcement initiated

investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by recording

ECIR No. being ECIR/RNZO/04/2024 against him. He next submitted that in

that investigation, it has been revealed that Santosh Kumar had laundered

the proceeds of crime through shell entities, including M/s Rockdrill

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-14- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

Constructions, in order to conceal and project the illicit funds as untainted.

He also submitted that the learned Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA,

New Delhi by orders dated 10.09.2025 and 19.11.2025 confirmed the

provisional attachment of the assets of informant-Santosh Kumar. In this

background, he submitted that summons under Section 50 of the PMLA were

issued to informant-Santosh Kumar, requiring his appearance on 10.11.2025,

however, he failed to appear citing medical grounds and ongoing treatment

at CMC, Vellore. He further submitted that petitioner no.1 was already

engaged on 12.01.2026 in pre-scheduled official proceedings, including the

recording of statements in other ongoing sensitive investigations and on that

day, the informant-Santosh Kumar appeared at the zonal office without prior

intimation, schedule or summons and on request, petitioner no.1 was agreed

only to a limited preliminary interaction and at about 01:20 P.M., when the

informant-Santosh Kumar was talking regarding his involvement in the

siphoning of Government funds in the Peyjal scam, he became evasive and

agitated and in a sudden and unprovoked attempt to disrupt the official

proceedings, he picked up a glass water jug placed on the table and

voluntarily struck it against his own head, causing a minor scalp injury before

the staff present could restrain him. He then submitted that thereafter the

informant-Santosh Kumar was immediately taken to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi

by the petitioners and the OPD Card registration No.2719 was prepared in

which the informant has himself stated that the said wound was self-inflicted

by the informant. The informant was treated for a superficial scalp wound

and discharged at about 03:30 P.M. and he was offered the option to return

home, but he stated that he felt fit and accompanied the officers back to the

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-15- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

ED office voluntarily. On the same day, as abundant caution, another medical

examination was done at about 08:10 P.M. on 12.01.2026 and the

Government Medical Officer certified the informant as medically fit and

physically fit with no injury other than the self-inflicted scalp wound, thereby

negating any allegation of custodial violence. He referred Section 67 of the

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act and submitted that the petitioners being

the officials of Enforcement Directorate are protected under that Act. He next

submitted that the informant has lodged the present FIR being Airport P.S.

Case No.05 of 2026 on 13.01.2026 at about 12:30 P.M. under Sections 115(2),

117(2), 127(2), 109(2), 351(2), 352, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023. He referred the above sections with their particulars and

Indian Penal Code sections, which read as under:

Sl. No. Particulars BNS Sections IPC Sections

1. Voluntarily causing grievous

hurt

115(2) 323

2. Punishment for voluntarily

causing grievous hurt

117(2) 325

3. Wrongful Confinement 127(2) 342

4. Attempt to murder 109(2) 307

5. Criminal Intimidation 351(2) 503

6. Intentional insult with intent

to provoke breach of peace

352 504

7. Causing disappearance of

evidence of offence, or giving

false information to screen

offender

238 201

8. Acts done by several persons

in furtherance of common

intention

3(5) 34

22. By way of referring above sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I submitted that in this type of case, even

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-16- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

intentionally Section 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been added

only to make out a case of cognizable in nature as if the matter is not

cognizable, the police is not authorized to register the FIR and investigate the

case unless authorized by the learned Magistrate and he referred to Section

174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He next submitted

that the petitioners have also lodged complaint before the same police station

on 13.01.2026 indicating that false allegations have been made by the

informant-Santosh Kumar against them, however, no FIR has been registered

and the complaint of the petitioners is not being investigated. He relied in the

case of State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and

others, reported in (1982) 1 SCC 561. He referred paragraphs 20 and 38

of the said judgment, which read as under:

“20. The only other decision to which I need refer is that of

the Privy Council in King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR

1945 PC 18 : (1944) 71 IA 203 : 217 IC 1] which constitutes,

as it were, the charter of the prosecution all over, for saying

that no investigation can ever be quashed. In a passage oft-

quoted but much misunderstood. Lord Porter, delivering the

opinion of the Judicial Committee, observed: (IA pp. 212-13)

“In Their Lordships' opinion, however, the more serious

aspect of the case is to be found in the resultant interference

by the court with the duties of the police. Just as it is

essential that every one accused of a crime should have free

access to a court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted

if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged,

so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not

interfere with the police in matters which are within their

province and into which the law imposes on them the duty

of inquiry. In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory

right on the part of the police to investigate the

circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without

requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it

would, as Their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it

should be held possible to interfere with those statutory

rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The functions of the judiciary and the police are

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-17- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of

individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is

only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own

function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court

to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under

Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions

in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present,

however, the court's functions begin when a charge is

preferred before it, and not until then.”

I do not think that this decision supports the wide

proposition canvassed before us by Shri Somnath Chatterjee. In

the case before the Privy Council, similar charges which were

levelled against the accused in an earlier prosecution were

dismissed. The High Court quashed the investigation into fresh

charges after examining the previous record, on the basis of

which it came to the conclusion that the evidence against the

accused was unacceptable. The question before the Privy

Council was not whether the fresh FIR disclosed any offence at

all. In fact, immediately after the passage which I have

extracted above, the Privy Council qualified its statement by

saying:

“No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and still

more, if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would

have no authority to undertake an investigation.”

If anything, therefore, the judgment shows that an

investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is

disclosed by the FIR. It shall also have been noticed, which is

sometimes overlooked, that the Privy Council took care to

qualify its statement of the law by saying that the judiciary

should not interfere with the police in matters which are within

their province. It is surely not within the province of the police

to investigate into a report which does not disclose the

commission of a cognizable offence and the Code does not

impose upon them the duty of enquiry in such cases.

38. In these circumstances, though I see no alternative

save to stop all further investigation on the basis of the FIR as

laid, no offence being disclosed by it under Section 4 of the Act,

I am unable to accept the contention of Shri Ashok Sen that all

documents, books, papers and cash seized so far during the

investigation should be returned to the firm and its partners

forthwith. The firm appears to be on the brink of an economic

crisis, as any scheme of this nature is eventually bound to be.

Considering the manner in which the firm has manipulated its

accounts and its affairs, I have no doubt that it will secret the

large funds and destroy the incriminating documents if they are

returned to it. The State Government, the Central Government

and the Reserve Bank of India must be given a reasonable

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-18- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

opportunity to see if it is possible, under the law, to institute an

enquiry into the affairs of the firm and, in the meanwhile, to

regulate its affairs. I consider such a step essential in the

interests of countless small depositors who, otherwise, will be

ruined by being deprived of their life's savings. The big black

money bosses will take any loss within their stride but the small

man must receive the protection of the State, which must see

to it that the small depositors are paid back their deposits with

the agreed interest as quickly as possible. I therefore direct that

the documents, books, papers, cash and other articles seized

during the investigation shall be retained by the police in their

custody for a period of two months from today and will be

returned, on the expiry of that period, to persons from whom

they were seized, subject to any lawful directions which may be

given or obtained in the meanwhile regarding their custody and

return.”

23. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I.

submitted that once the ingredients of those sections are not there, the FIR

is fit to be interfered with.

24. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I. further relied in the case of Lalita

Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014)

2 SCC 1. He referred paragraph 120.1 of the said judgment, which reads as

under:

“120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under

Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses

commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary

inquiry is permissible in such a situation.”

25. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G.I.

submitted that once the said allegation is made before the police and if the

cognizable offence is made out, the police was required to register the FIR

immediately and if any doubt was there, at least preliminary inquiry was

required to be done, which was not done by the police. In this background,

he submitted that if such allegations are there and the accused/informant,

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-19- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

who is having three criminal antecedents, is being protected by Jharkhand

police against whom Jharkhand police itself has lodged two cases i.e., Kotwali

P.S. Case No.22/2024, dated 12.01.2024, registered for the alleged offence

under Sections 379 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Ranchi Sadar P.S.

Case No.251/2024, dated 08.06.2024, registered for the alleged offence

under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and

the aforesaid ECIR case has also been registered against the informant, in

which, the informant has revealed that 10% of the total tender value is

siphoned off and disbursed to the Departmental Minister to the tune of 5%

share, commission share of 1.5% to 2% to the Secretary of the concerned

Department and commission share of 3% to the Engineer-in-Chief and others.

He also submitted that the informant has also made statements and

confessed that out of siphoning amount of Rs.23 Crores, he withdrew

approximately Rs.12 Crores in cash and distributed it to high-ranking officials

of the State Government and distribution to the different officials has been

disclosed at page 22 of the petition. He submitted that in this background,

prima facie it appears that the informant is being utilized by certain officials

of the State authorities to initiate registration of present case on exaggerated

and unfounded allegations with the effect of harassing the officers of the

Enforcement Directorate and adversely impacting the ongoing investigation.

He next submitted that if such a situation is there, it is not expected that

Jharkhand police will make a fair investigation that too of an FIR made by an

accused, who is having three criminal antecedents and who is also an accused

of siphoning off the money upon higher officials of the Department. In view

of that, he submitted that this Court is required to find out as to whether any

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-20- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

exceptional circumstance is made out to handover the investigation of the

case to an independent agency such as CBI or not. According to him, it is a

fit case to transfer the investigation to the CBI. He also submitted that at this

stage, this Court is not required to make any mini trial if such allegations are

there and true facts will emerge once the investigation will be conducted by

the independent agency like CBI. He next submitted that this matter may

kindly be handed over to the CBI.

26. On the other hand, Mr. Nnagamnthu S., learned senior counsel

appearing for the State of Jharkhand vehemently opposed the prayer and

submitted that these two petitioners are two individuals, who are the

Enforcement Directorate officials and Mr. Raju, has not appeared for the

petitioners rather he has appeared for the Enforcement Directorate. He next

objected that respondent no.2 is the Union of India through CBI and in view

of that, in a case where the prayer is made to handover the matter to CBI,

the Union of India cannot be represented through CBI. He then submitted

that in the case of Republic of India (CBI) v. Shubra Kundu, reported in

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos.39440/2023, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed that the CBI which is created under a statute

cannot represent ‘Republic of India’ and in view of that, amendment was

allowed to be made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case to that effect.

He also drawn attention of the Court to page 64 of the writ petition and

referred to the prayers made therein and submitted that the law and order is

the State subject and if such complaint is brought to the knowledge of the

State police, the State police is rightly conducting the investigation. He then

submitted that two rejoinders have been filed by the petitioners and those

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-21- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

rejoinders have been affidavited by Mr. Debidatta Sarangi, who is posted as

Assistant Director of Directorate of Enforcement office of Joint Directorate of

Ranchi zone. He next submitted that the said rejoinders are not filed by the

petitioners, which is again not in accordance with law. He further drawn

attention of the Court to Section 67 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering

Act and submitted that if the action is done in good faith, then only in that

case, protection will be provided and good faith has been defined under

Section 2(11) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He submitted that the said

act cannot be said to be done in good faith and in view of that, Section 67 of

the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is not attracted. He also submitted

that Section 218 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is also

not protecting the petitioners as the said act was not done in the official

capacity. He also referred paragraphs 2 to 10 of the writ petition as well as

paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition and submitted that the facts

are disclosed therein, which are mis taught. He referred to page 136 of the

writ petition, which is the complaint made by petitioner no.1 to the police

station and submitted that it was simply a letter informing the police therein

no prayer is made for registration of the FIR and in view of that, the police

has not registered the FIR. He referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., reported in

(2014) 2 SCC 1 and submitted that the said judgment is in two parts, which

also suggests that if cognizable offence is made out forthwith, the FIR is

required to be registered and if there is any doubt, preliminary inquiry should

be done within stipulated time. In this background, he submitted that it was

only request on behalf of the petitioners and in view of that, if the FIR is not

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-22- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

registered and, as such, there is no illegality. He also submitted if only

allegation is made out and no case is made out, the case is not required to

be registered. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of T.T. Antony

v. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. He referred to

paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

“18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section

154 CrPC is commonly known as first information report (FIR)

though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very

important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the

earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence

recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets

the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of

the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion

under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and

forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. It is

quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more

informations than one are given to a police officer in charge

of a police station in respect of the same incident involving

one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he

need not enter every one of them in the station house diary

and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague

information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the

information first entered in the station house diary, kept for

this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station

is the first information report — FIR postulated by Section

154 CrPC. All other informations made orally or in

writing after the commencement of the investigation into the

cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the

first information report and entered in the station house diary

by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may

come to his notice during the investigation, will be

statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such

information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and

entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect

be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with

the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions

cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the

investigating agency learns during the investigation or

receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR

under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be

irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in

the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a

different situation in which H having killed W, his wife,

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-23- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or

knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up

the responsibility and during investigation the truth is

detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H —

the real offender — who can be arraigned in the report under

Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of

course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a

report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that

investigation is being directed against the person suspected

to be the accused.

19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a

police station has to commence investigation as provided in

Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first

information report, on coming to know of the commission of

a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on

the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion

under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and

forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section

173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he

comes into possession of further information or material, he

need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make

further investigation, normally with the leave of the court,

and where during further investigation he collects further

evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the

same with one or more further reports; this is the import of

sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrP.C.”

27. Mr. Nnagamnthu S., learned senior counsel appearing for the State of

Jharkhand through Video Conferencing further submitted that if such

allegations are made by the informant, the police has rightly registered the

FIR in light of Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

By way of referring the judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka

v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 382, he

submitted that holding a preliminary inquiry before registering a case is not

mandatory in every case, even in cases which do not fall within the category

of cases referred to in Section 173(3)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023. He also submitted that the police is not biased in conducting

the investigation fairly and in view of that, there is no illegality. He next

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-24- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

submitted that if the prayer (ii) is made with regard to handing over the

matter to the CBI and if that will come once, this Court may not incline to

interfere with the prayer (i), which is made for quashing of the FIR. He then

submitted that there are lines of judgments of quashing of the FIR, the Court

is not required to make any roaming inquiry. To buttress this argument, he

referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the

case of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, reported in AIR 1945

PC 18 and submitted that there is a statutory right on the part of the police

to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without

requiring any authority from the judicial authorities. He further submitted that

the said power cannot be utilized by the Court according to whim and caprice.

To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of

Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, reported in (1977) 4 SCC

451 and submitted that statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In the same line, he further

relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Union of India v. Prakash

P. Hinduja, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 195 and submitted that during the

course of investigation which would meant from the time of lodging the First

Information Report till the submission of the report by the Officer-in-Charge,

the Court is not required to interfere with the investigation. He also submitted

that it is well-settled that if an offence is disclosed, the Court’s interference is

not permitted in light of the judgment passed in the case of Satvinder Kaur

v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728. He then submitted

that the legal position has been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-25- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401. He referred paragraph 33

of the said judgment, which reads as under:

“33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the

High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of

stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”,

during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section

482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and in what circumstances and whether the High Court

would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the

accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the

investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under

Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not

entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/

complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC

and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final

conclusions are as under:

33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the

relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure

contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a

cognizable offence.

33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the

cognizable offences.

33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or

offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report

that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised

sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in

the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the

formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of

which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry

as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the

allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at

the initial stage.

33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an

exception rather than an ordinary rule.

33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the

jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State

operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought

not to tread over the other sphere.

33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are

complementary, not overlapping.

33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-26- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the

judicial process should not interfere at the stage of

investigation of offences.

33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court

do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act

according to its whims or caprice.

33.12. The first information report is not an

encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details

relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the

investigation by the police is in progress, the court should

not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police

must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be

premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts

that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated

or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After

investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no

substance in the application made by the complainant, the

investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary

before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by

the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known

procedure.

33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide,

but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more

cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the

court.

33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks

fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the

self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the

parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P.

Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960

SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has the

jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by

the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the

power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether

the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable

offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits

whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a

cognizable offence and the court has to permit the

investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in

the FIR.

33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable

and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered

by the High Court while passing an interim order in a

quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section

482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-27- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the

pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with

circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to

be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally,

when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy

and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court,

the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim

order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted”

and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory

bail under Section 438CrPC before the competent court. The

High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing

the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either

during the investigation or till the investigation is completed

and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section

173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition

under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

33.17. Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie

of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant

of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the

broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section

482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief

reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is

required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the

application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can

consider what was weighed with the High Court while

passing such an interim order.

33.18. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High

Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the

aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does

it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no

coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague

and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or

misapplied.”

28. Mr. Nnagamnthu S., learned senior counsel appearing for the State

through Video Conferencing further relied upon the judgment passed in the

case of ED v. Niraj Tyagi, reported in (2024) 5 SCC 419 and submitted

that in that case, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when

the investigation by the police is in progress, the Court should not go into the

merits of the allegations in the FIR. He also referred paragraphs 15 and 20 of

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-28- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

the writ petition and submitted that this Court is not required to make a mini

trial at this stage. He next submitted that vide order dated 16.01.2026, this

Court has directed to preserve the CCTV footage, however, the same has not

been preserved and even the CCTV camera is not installed in light of the

several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is in violation. He

also submitted that in those judgments, it has been held that interrogation

must be held in the background of CCTV footage. On these grounds, he

submitted that no materials are there either to quash the FIR or to handover

the matter to the CBI at this stage and, as such, this writ petition may kindly

be dismissed.

29. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

no.5-informant vehemently argued that the petitioners are accused of

custodial torture case and the actions of the petitioners as well as

Enforcement Directorate officials are outrageous. He further submitted that

even the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hand and vital

information of CCTV footage has been suppressed. He relied in the case of

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 184 and

referred paragraphs 19 and 21 of the said judgment, which read as under:

“19. The Union of India is also to file an affidavit in which

it will update this Court on the constitution and workings of

the Central Oversight Body, giving full particulars thereof. In

addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV

cameras and recording equipment in the offices of:

(i) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

(ii) National Investigation Agency (NIA)

(iii) Enforcement Directorate (ED)

(iv) Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)

(v) Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)

(vi) Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)

(vii) Any other agency which carries out interrogations

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-29- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

and has the power of arrest.

As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their

office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices

where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place

in the same manner as it would in a police station.

21. The SLOC and the COB (where applicable) shall give

directions to all police stations, investigative/enforcement

agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside

the police stations/offices of investigative/enforcement

agencies about the coverage of the premises concerned by

CCTV. This shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi

and vernacular language. In addition to the above, it shall be

clearly mentioned therein that a person has a right to

complain about human rights violations to the National/State

Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the

Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered

to take cognizance of an offence. It shall further mention that

CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period,

which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has

a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of

his human rights.”

30. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel

for the informant submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the

Union of India to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices

of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), National Investigation Agency

(NIA), Enforcement Directorate (ED), Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB),

Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and Serious Fraud Investigation

Office (SFIO) and it has also been observed that the CCTV footage is required

to be preserved at least for six months and the victim has a right to have the

same secured in the event of violation of his human rights. He then submitted

that the conduct of the petitioners are further doubtful in view of the fact that

the petitioners have not earlier made the informant as respondent in the

present case and he on instruction has appeared suo motu before this Court

and pursuant to that, the informant has been made party and he was given

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-30- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

time to file counter affidavit, which has been recorded in the order dated

16.01.2026. He submitted that on the said date, on his submission the Court

has directed to preserve CCTV footage installed at the premises of the

Directorate of Enforcement. He referred to paragraphs 13, 14 and 16 of the

counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand and

submitted that it has been stated therein how the CCTV footage has been

managed and that has been replied in paragraphs 98 and 99 of the rejoinder

of the petitioners speaking otherwise. With regard to CCTV footage, he also

referred to pages 852, 857 and 860 of the rejoinder of the petitioners and

submitted that these documents have been manufactured later on with

regard to installation of CCTV camera in the premises of Enforcement

Directorate and, as such, the conduct of the petitioners is very doubtful and

his client, who is the informant, is the victim. He further relied upon the

judgment passed in the case of Tomaso Bruno and another v. State of

Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178 and referred paragraphs 24,

27 and 28 of the said judgment, which read as under:

“24. With the advancement of information technology,

scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is

to pervade the methods of investigation. With the increasing

impact of technology in everyday life and as a result, the

production of electronic evidence in cases has become relevant

to establish the guilt of the accused or the liability of the

defendant. Electronic documents stricto sensu are admitted as

material evidence. With the amendment to the Evidence Act in

2000, Sections 65-A and 65-B were introduced into Chapter V

relating to documentary evidence. Section 65-A provides that

contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if

the criteria provided in Section 65-B is complied with. The

computer generated electronic records in evidence are

admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section

65-B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65-B makes

admissible as a document, paper printout of electronic records

stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer,

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-31- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-

section (2) of Section 65-B. Secondary evidence of contents of

document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence

Act. PW 13 stated that he saw the full video recording of the

fateful night in the CCTV camera, but he has not recorded

the same in the case diary as nothing substantial to be adduced

as evidence was present in it.

27. [Ed. : Para 27 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.

F.3/Ed.B.J./12/2015 dated 19-3-2015.] . As per Section 114

Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of

best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it,

the court can draw an adverse inference against him

notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him.

The presumption under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the

Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary

inference. Unlike presumption under Section 139 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, where the court has no option but

to draw a statutory presumption, under Section 114 of the

Evidence Act, the court has the option; the court may or may

not raise presumption on the proof of certain facts. Drawing of

presumption under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence

Act depends upon the nature of fact required to be proved and

its importance in the controversy, the usual mode of proving it;

the nature, quality and cogency of the evidence which has not

been produced and its accessibility to the party concerned, all of

which have to be taken into account. It is only when all these

matters are duly considered that an adverse inference can be

drawn against the party.

28. The High Court held that even though the appellants

alleged that the footage of CCTV is being concealed by the

prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the

accused did not invoke Section 233 CrPC and they did not make

any application for production of CCTV camera footage. The

High Court further observed that the accused were not able to

discredit the testimony of PW 1, PW 12 and PW 13 qua there

being no relevant material in the CCTV camera

footage. Notwithstanding the fact that the burden lies upon the

accused to establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts and

circumstances of the case, in our view, the prosecution in

possession of the best evidence, CCTV footage ought to have

produced the same. In our considered view, it is a fit case to

draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under

Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act that the

prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to

them had it been produced.”

31. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-32- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

for the informant submitted that the footage of CCTV was concealed and that

was the subject-matter in that case and in light of the said judgment also,

the petitioners’ conduct is deprecable and in view of that, this matter is not

required to be handed over to the CBI.

32. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the informant

further referred to relevant sections mentioned in the FIR and submitted that

in terms of the allegations, cognizable offence is made out and, as such, the

FIR has been rightly registered because the injury has been caused to the

informant due to assault made by the petitioners. He then submitted that the

wrong statement has been made that the informant has voluntarily went back

to the office of Enforcement Directorate at 04:00 P.M. when such injury was

there upon the body of the informant. He next submitted that prior to visit to

the office of Enforcement Directorate, petitioner no.1 had called on the mobile

phone of the informant and his wife asking the informant to appear and it is

not correct to say that the informant has appeared suo motu on 13.01.2026

in the office of Enforcement Directorate. He also relied upon the judgment

passed in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and others,

reported in (2015) 8 SCC 744. He referred paragraphs 36 and 38.8 of the

said judgment, which reads as under:

“36. That leaves us with the question of initiation of criminal

proceedings in cases where enquiry establishes culpability in

custodial deaths and for deployment of at least two women

constables in each district. We see no reason why appropriate

proceedings cannot be initiated in cases where enquiry

establishes culpability of those in whose custody a victim dies or

suffers any injuries or torture. The law should take its course

and those responsible duly and appropriately proceeded against.

38.8. The State Governments shall launch in all cases where

an enquiry establishes culpability of the persons in whose

custody the victim has suffered death or injury, an appropriate

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-33- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

prosecution for the commission of offences disclosed by such

enquiry report and/or investigation in accordance with law.”

33. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia submitted that in

a routine way, the matter cannot be transferred to the CBI for investigation.

He also submitted that once such allegation of assault is there, as per

paragraph 38.8 of the said judgment, the inquiry and investigation is required

to be done against the said officers.

34. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel further relied upon the judgment

passed in the case of Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., reported in

(2005) 9 SCC 631, particularly paragraph 8 thereof and submitted that

guidelines have been issued that the Courts are also required to have a

change in their outlook, approach, appreciation and attitude, particularly in

cases involving custodial crimes and they should exhibit more sensitivity and

adopt a realistic rather than a narrow technical approach, while dealing with

the cases of custodial crime so that as far as possible within their powers, the

truth is found and the guilty should not escape so that the victim of the crime

has the satisfaction, and that ultimately the majesty of law has prevailed.

Relying on the above judgment, he submitted that the Court is also required

to consider the nature of allegation which was made in the custody.

35. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the informant also

relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Romila Thapar and others

v. Union of India and others, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 753 and in the

case of Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and others, reported in

(2025) 5 SCC 149 and submitted that at the initial stage, the investigation

is not required to be handed over to the CBI. Relying on the above judgments,

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-34- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed

the prayer of quashing of the FIR as well as handing over of the matter to

the CBI and submitted that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

36. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in reply submitted that

the objection has been made with regard to the representation of the Union

of India through CBI is misconceived. He further submitted that in the case

of Republic of India (CBI) v. Shubra Kundu (supra) much reliance has

been placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of

Jharkhand and in that case, the CBI has filed the petition and in view of that,

it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Republic of India

cannot be represented through CBI and CBI is the creation of statute. He

submitted that in the present case, the CBI works under the Union of India

and that objection is technical in nature. He also submitted that roster of this

Bench is there of the criminal writ petition relating to Delhi Police

Establishment Act (CBI) and P.C. Act and in view of that, this Court is

competent to hear the matter. He next submitted that in light of the allegation

no cognizable offence is made out for superficial nature of injury and only to

help other high profile persons with the help of the informant, who is an

accused in other two cases including P.M.L.A. cases, the case has been

investigated by the police and further on 14.01.2026, at about 06:00 a.m.,

Jharkhand police has reached to the office of the Enforcement Directorate

and treated the said office as crime scene in absence of any notice to the

petitioners under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023. He also submitted that pages 852, 857, 859, 860 of the rejoinder are

misconstrued by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 with regard to

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-35- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

the correspondence for installation of CCTV camera in the office. He also

submitted that the informant was not taken into custody and the arguments

of learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.5 that custodial violence

has been made, that is also not made out. He next submitted that no summon

for a particular date was issued, however, the informant has appeared suo

motu.

37. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for respondent no.4-

Union of India by way of referring paragraphs 23 and 24 of the writ petition

submitted that on 14.01.2026 at about 11:20 P.M. the Investigating Officer

Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma issued an official notice by e-mail styled as a ‘Notice

for preservation of evidence’ calling for immediate compliance and on

15.01.2026 at around 06:00 a.m., pursuant to the said late -night

communication, a substantial police presence arrived at the office premises

and sought to treat the office as a crime scene, thereby disrupting the normal

functioning of a Central Government agency and in view of that, subsequent

sequence of event reveals a clear attempt by the informant-Santosh Kumar

to misuse the criminal machinery as a shield against a lawful and advanced

investigation into the siphoning of approximately Rs.23 Crores of public fund.

He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim

v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 194

and referred paragraph 26 thereof, which reads as under:

“26. At this stage, we would like to observe something

important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court

invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the

FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the

ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-36- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking

vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a

duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.

We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed

against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking

personal vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the

FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary

pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments

made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the

necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.

Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into

the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the

purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to

constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In

frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to

look into many other attending circumstances emerging from

the record of the case over and above the averments and, if

need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in

between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction

under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution

need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is

empowered to take into account the overall circumstances

leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the

materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for

instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been

registered over a period of time. It is in the background of

such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes

importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking

vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”

38. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for respondent no.4-

Union of India further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of

Mahmood Ali & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported

in (2023) 15 SCC 488 and referred paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said

judgment, which read as under:

“12. We say so because once the complainant decides to

proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for

wreaking personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure that

the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary

pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments

made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the

necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.

Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-37- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the

purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to

constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.

13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes

a duty to look into many other attending circumstances

emerging from the record of the case over and above the

averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection

try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising

its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the

Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case

but is empowered to take into account the overall

circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the

case as well as the materials collected in the course of

investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple

FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the

background of such circumstances the registration of

multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the

issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal

grudge as alleged.”

39. Relying on the above judgments, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I.

appearing for respondent no.4-Union of India submitted that the Court while

exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, is required to take into account overall circumstances

leading to initiation of registration of the case.

40. On these grounds, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for

respondent no.4-Union of India submitted that if such allegations are there

and high-profile persons’ cases are being investigated by the Enforcement

Directorate in the State of Jharkhand, the malafide action on behalf of the

high-ups against the Enforcement Directorate’s officers cannot be ruled out

and, as such, it is a fit case to handover the matter to CBI for investigation.

41. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for respondent

no.2-CBI submitted that the CBI is constituted under a special statute and in

relation to the matters which were come within the purview thereof, the CBI

could exercise its jurisdiction. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-38- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

of Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, reported in (2009) 1 SCC

441 and referred paragraph 66 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

“66. The Act is a special statute. By reason of the said

enactment, CBI was constituted. In relation to the matter

which were to come within the purview thereof, CBI could

exercise its jurisdiction. The law and order, however, being a

State subject, CBI derives jurisdiction only when a consent

therefor is given by the statute. It is, however, now beyond

any controversy that the High Court and this Court also direct

investigation by CBI. Our attention has been drawn to the

provisions of the CBI Manual, from a perusal whereof it

appears that the Director, CBI exercises his power of

superintendence in respect of the matters enumerated in

Chapter VI of the CBI Manual which includes reference by

the State and/or reference by the High Courts and this Court

as also the registration thereof. The reference thereof may

be received from the following:

“(a) Prime Minister of India

(b) Cabinet Ministers of the Government of India/Chief

Ministers of the State Governments or their equivalent

(c) The State Governments

(d) Supreme Court/High Courts.”

The CBI Manual having been framed by the Union of India,

evidently, it has accepted that reference for investigation to

CBI may be made either by this Court or by the High Court.

Thus, even assuming that reference had been made by the

State Government at the instance of the High Court, the

same by itself would not render the investigation carried out

by it to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as assuming

that the reference had been made by the High Court in

exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India in a public interest litigation, the same would also be

valid.”

42. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no.4-CBI also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of

Khurshid Ahmad Chohan v. Union of Territory of Jammu and

Kashmir and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1491 and he

referred paragraphs 15 to 18, 24 and 27 of the said judgment, which read as

under:

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-39- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

“15. It is a settled position of law that the credibility of an

investigation agency should be both impeachable and un-

questionable. The power to transfer investigations to a cer-

tain investigating agency must be sparingly used in the in-

terest of justice and to maintain public trust in the institution.

If the investigating agency is privy to the dispute, it may raise

doubts on the credibility of the investigation and thus, would

be a valid ground to transfer the investigation. In this regard,

gainful reference may be made to the decision of this Court

in Mohd. Anis v. Union of India, wherein it was held as fol-

lows:

“5. … Fair and impartial investigation by an independ-

ent agency, not involved in the controversy, is the de-

mand of public interest. If the investigation is by an

agency which is allegedly privy to the dispute, the credi-

bility of the investigation will be doubted and that will be

contrary to the public interest as well as the interest of

justice.” (SCC p. 148, para 5) “2. … Doubts were ex-

pressed regarding the fairness of the investigation as it

was feared that as the local police was alleged to be in-

volved in the encounters, the investigation by an officer

of the U.P. Cadre may not be impartial.”

16. Similarly, this Court in the case of R.S. Sodhi v. State

of U.P., noted that:

“2. … We have perused the events that have taken

place since the incidents but we are refraining from en-

tering upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any

party but we think that since the accusations are directed

against the local police personnel it would be desirable to

entrust the investigation to an independent agency like

the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned

including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured

that an independent agency is looking into the matter and

that would lend the final outcome of the investigation

credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry

out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since

the allegations are against them. It is only with that in

mind that we having thought it both advisable and desir-

able as well as in the interest of justice to entrust the

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-40- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation forth-

with and we do hope that it would complete the investi-

gation at an early date so that those involved in the oc-

currences, one way or the other, may be brought to book.

We direct accordingly.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

17. Thus, the power to transfer an investigation to the

CBI is not to be exercised as a matter of course. The Consti-

tution Bench in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Pro-

tection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (CPDR)

16

, exam-

ined the circumstances under which Constitutional Courts

may invoke their jurisdiction to direct a CBI investigation. The

Court observed that while the power to transfer investigation

to the CBI must be exercised with circumspection and only

in exceptional circumstances, such power is nonetheless

available to be exercised when it is necessary to secure the

ends of justice or to prevent infringement of fundamental

rights. The Court further held that such extraordinary juris-

diction may be invoked to ensure a fair and impartial inves-

tigation where state machinery appears to be ineffective, bi-

ased, or complicit. The relevant observations from the said

judgment are extracted below:

“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it neces-

sary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by

Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any

order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed

limitations on the exercise of these constitutional pow-

ers. The very plenitude of the power under the said arti-

cles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the

question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investi-

gation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible

guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such

power should be exercised but time and again it has been

reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a

matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled

some allegations against the local police. This extraordi-

nary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and

in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to

provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations

or where the incident may have national and international

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-41- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

ramifications or where such an order may be necessary

for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental

rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large num-

ber of cases and with limited resources, may find it diffi-

cult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the

process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfac-

tory investigations.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

18. The settled principle of law that emerges from the

abovementioned decisions is that the power to transfer the

investigation of a criminal case to the CBI is an extraordinary

measure, which must be exercised sparingly with great cau-

tion, and only in rare and exceptional circumstances. This

jurisdiction must not be invoked lightly or in a routine fash-

ion, but only where the facts of the case disclose a compel-

ling necessity to ensure fairness in investigation, preserva-

tion of public faith in the administration of justice and pro-

tection of fundamental rights of the parties involved. In ex-

amining the prayer made by an aggrieved person seeking

transfer of investigation to the CBI, the Court must neces-

sarily be guided by the strict parameters laid down in binding

precedents. These include, inter alia, instances where the

State police authorities appear to be biased or complicit,

where the investigation has been tainted by delay, irregular-

ity, suppression of material facts, or where the complexity

and inter-State ramifications of the matter necessitate the

involvement of a central agency.

24. This Court has addressed the grave issue of custodial

torture, inhuman treatment, and custodial deaths in a series

of notable judgments including D.K Basu v. State of West

Bengal, State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Nilabati

Behera v. State of Orissa. This Court has not only condemned

the nature and extent of such violations as affronts to human

dignity and constitutional rights but has also underscored the

imperative for a thorough, impartial, and effective

investigation into every instance of custodial violence. The

Court has repeatedly emphasised that accountability must be

ensured through proper legal and procedural mechanisms so

that such acts do not go unchecked or unpunished.

27. Considering the unprecedented gravity of this

custodial torture case, the systematic cover-up orchestrated

by local police machinery, the institutional bias demonstrated

in the handling of the complaint, and the complete failure of

local authorities to conduct a fair investigation and the

unrelenting stand taken by the respondent State, we are

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-42- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

constrained to direct transfer of investigation to the CBI. The

local police at Kupwara have demonstrated complete

institutional failure by first illegally detaining the appellant

from 20

th

February, 2023, then subjecting him to barbaric

and systematic torture resulting in permanent mutilation and

finally refusing to register the complaint filed by the

appellant's wife while simultaneously creating counter-

narratives to shield the perpetrators from accountability. By

directing the very Senior Superintendent of Police, who

summoned the appellant at the Joint Interrogation Centre,

Kupwara, just to conduct an enquiry at such a belated stage,

combined with the pendency of NDPS cases, creates a

conflict of interest, making it impossible for any fair

investigation to be conducted at the local level. Only

investigation by an independent agency, i.e., CBI can restore

public faith in the criminal justice system, ensure that this

dehumanising crime does not go unpunished, and guarantee

that the truth emerges without any institutional bias or cover-

up attempts. The majesty of law demands nothing less than

complete independence and impartiality in investigating

crimes that shock the conscience of society and violate the

most fundamental principles of human dignity enshrined in

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the transfer of

investigation to the CBI becomes not merely advisable but

constitutionally imperative to ensure justice and uphold the

rule of law.”

43. Relying on the above judgments, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned

counsel appearing for respondent no.4-CBI submitted that if such allegations

are there as in the case in hand, the matter can be handed over to the CBI.

44. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for respondent

no.4-CBI further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta

High Court in the case of Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata Zonal Office

I v. State of West Bengal and others and State of West Bengal and

others v. Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata Zonal Officer I and

another in MAT Nos. 169 of 2024 and 191 of 2024 respectively and

submitted that in the said cases, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has

transferred the case to the CBI. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid

judgment and in light of the allegations in the present case, it is a fit case to

be transferred to the CBI.

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-43- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

45. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties

and going through the materials on record, it transpires that the Ranchi zonal

office of the Directorate of Enforcement is presently handling several high-

profile and sensitive investigations involving influential political figures and

senior bureaucrats, including matters relating to Chief Minister, former

Minister Sri Alamgir Alam, and senior IAS officers such as Ms. Pooja Singhal

and Shri Chhavi Ranjan. The informant is an accused in Peyjal Scam and the

allegation is there of misappropriation of Government fund of approximately

Rs.23 Crores. The informant in his statement, has stated before the

Enforcement Directorate that 10% of the total tender value is siphoned off

and distributed to the Departmental Minister to the tune of 5% share,

commission share for the Secretary of the concerned Department was to the

tune of 1.5%-2% and commission share to Engineer-in-Chief and others was

to the tune of 3%. The informant was noticed earlier by petitioner no.1 to

appear for investigation and pursuant to that, the informant has written a

letter disclosing therein that his treatment is going on at CMC, Vellore and he

took time and all of a sudden as alleged, he appeared in the office of the

Enforcement Directorate on 12.01.2026 and it has been pointed out that

petitioner no.1 was engaged in another matter and he has not been able to

entertain him, however, on request, he has talked with the informant and in

course of talking, the informant has suo motu hit his head by way of taking

water jug from the table and pursuant to that, he has received injury in the

head. The petitioners have taken him to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi and he was

examined by the doctor and the OPD Card was prepared, contained in

Annexure-5 of the petition at page 134. The doctor has himself noted that

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-44- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

the informant has disclosed that the said injury was self-inflicted by the

informant and no bleeding was found, as examined by the Medical Officer,

Sadar Hospital, Ranchi, contained in Annexure-5. On the next date i.e. on

13.01.2026, the informant has lodged the FIR before the Airport Police Station,

which was registered as Airport P.S. Case No.5 of 2026. On 15.01.2026, it is

alleged that substantial police force has reached to the office of Enforcement

Directorate and treated the said office as a crime scene. Even if such

allegations are true, the question remains what was the haste by the State

police to reach to the office of Enforcement Directorate in the early morning

of 15.01.2026. If the petitioners have done so, they were required to be

noticed under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by

the police and inquired from them and if certain cogent materials were found

against them, they were required to proceed in accordance with law. The

manner police had reached to the office of the Enforcement Directorate that

too in the early morning prima facie suggests that it was on the instigation of

some high-ups, who are accused under the Prevention of Money-Laundering

Act. The two agencies being Central Government agency as well as the State

machinery are fighting amongst each other with regard to the allegations

made by the informant. The fairness of investigation is important not only for

the accused, but even for the victim. A reference may be made to the

judgment passed in the case of Nirmal Singh Kehlon (supra).

46. The proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer

is the backbone of the rule of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Shashi Thomas v. State, reported in (2006) 12 SCC

421.

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-45- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

47. If there is no fair trial and investigation, justice becomes the victim and

that has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira

Habibullah H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2004) 4 SCC

158. It has been held in paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which reads as

under:

“18. According to the appellant Zahira there was no fair

trial and the entire effort during trial and at all relevant times

before also was to see that the accused persons got

acquitted. When the investigating agency helps the accused,

the witnesses are threatened to depose falsely and the

prosecutor acts in a manner as if he was defending the

accused, and the court was acting merely as an onlooker and

when there is no fair trial at all, justice becomes the victim.”

48. The investigation in criminal matter must be free and that was the

subject-matter in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in

(2010) 12 SCC 254. Paragraph 32 of the said judgment reads as under:

“32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free

from objectionable features or infirmities which may

legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused

that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior

motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to

conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and

harassment to any of the accused. The investigating officer

should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility

of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must

dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The investigating

officer “is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with

such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction

but to bring out the real unvarnished truth”. (Vide R.P.

Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ

1239] , Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(1974) 3 SCC

774 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 250 : AIR 1974 SC 1822] , SCC at p.

780, para 11 and Mahmood v. State of U.P. [(1976) 1 SCC

542 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 72 : AIR 1976 SC 69] )”

49. In view of the above, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the

investigation is being done or is done in a manner with an object of helping

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-46- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

the party, the Court is required to pass appropriate order.

50. The issue whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of

Investigation, established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place

within the territorial jurisdiction of a State without the consent of the State

Government was referred for the opinion of the Constitution Bench of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others v.

The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal

and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

has made following observation in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said judgment,

which read as under:

“17. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the stand

of the appellants that the exercise of power by the Supreme

Court or the High Courts to refer investigation to CBI directly

without prior approval of the State Government concerned

would violate the federal structure of the Constitution is

again misconceived as it overlooks the basic fact that in a

federal structure it is the duty of the courts to uphold the

constitutional values and to enforce the constitutional

limitations as an ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. In

support of the proposition, learned counsel placed reliance

on the decisions of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Union

of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592] , S.R. Bommai v. Union of

India [(1994) 3 SCC 1] and Kuldip Nayar v. Union of

India [(2006) 7 SCC 1] .

18. Relying on the recent decision by a Bench of nine

Judges of this Court in I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N. [(2007) 2

SCC 1] , learned counsel submitted that the judicial review

being itself the basic feature of the Constitution, no

restriction can be placed even by inference and by principle

of legislative competence on the powers of the Supreme

Court and the High Courts with regard to the enforcement

of fundamental rights and protection of the citizens of India.

Learned counsel asserted that in exercise of powers either

under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the courts are

merely discharging their duty of judicial review and are

neither usurping any jurisdiction, nor overriding the doctrine

of separation of powers.”

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-47- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

51. Be that as it may. It is well-settled that the direction for CBI inquiry

should not be ordered by the High Court in a routine manner. The

jurisprudence developed by several judgments is well-settled, which imposes

a significant self-restraint on the exercise of extraordinary constitutional

power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is required to be

exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations and in a

routine manner, investigation cannot be handed over to the CBI. The Court is

required to satisfy on material that it necessitates CBI investigation.

52. It is well-known that public order (Entry 1) and the police (Entry 2) is

a State subject falling in List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution and it is a

primary responsibility of the investigating agency of the State police to

investigate all the offences which are committed within its jurisdiction,

however, the investigation can be handed over to the CBI on satisfaction on

the conditions as specified therein only in exceptional circumstances, as has

been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases including in the case

of State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic

Rights, West Bengal (supra) and that power cannot be exercised in a

routine manner without examining the complexities, nature of offence and

other criterion.

53. Section 67 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act speaks as under:

“67. Bar of suits in civil courts.-- No suit shall be brought in

any civil court to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or

order made under this Act and no prosecution, suit or other

proceeding shall lie against the Government or any officer of

the Government for anything done or intended to be done in

good faith under this Act.”

54. In light of the above provision, the officers of the Enforcement

Directorate are protected for suit or proceeding. However, the argument has

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-48- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

been made on behalf of the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of

Jharkhand by way of referring Section 2(11) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 that if it is done in good faith, that protection can be there. The above

submission can be appreciated only when fair investigation is done as to

whether the said act of the petitioners was done in good faith or not.

55. The CBI is already made respondent no.4 in the present case. The

Republic of India and the Union of India are not technically identical, though

they are often used interchangeably to refer to the nation. The Union of

India refers to the legal entity and federal structure of the states, while

the Republic of India is the official, sovereign, democratic name of the

country as a whole. In fact, in the year 1963 by an executive resolution, the

Government established the CBI and prior to that, there existed the Special

Police Establishment (SPE) under the DSPE Act, 1946 to investigate offences

committed by Central Government servants while discharging their official

duties. With the creation of the CBI, the SPE was made a wing of the CBI for

the purposes of investigation. The CBI derives its powers from the DSPE Act,

1946. The CBI functions under the administrative control of the Prime Minister.

The CBI is a central police agency that investigates cases, inter alia, of bribery

and corruption. In the year 1987, the Anti-Corruption Division was created in

the CBI.

56. The judgments relied by the learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the informant-

respondent no.5 are on different facts and the facts in the case in hand are

different and, as such, those judgments are not helping the respondent-State

as well as the informant-respondent no.5.

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-49- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

57. Coming to the facts of the present case, the allegations are made that

the informant has suo motu hit his head by way of jug kept on the table,

however, the informant has alleged that the said act was done by the

petitioners and that is the subject-matter of investigation and in view of that,

the FIR cannot be quashed as the said allegations are not coming in the

parameters of the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 (1) Supp SC 335.

58. Annexure-8 annexed with the writ petition is the pre-existing medical

condition of the informant, wherefrom, it transpires that the informant is

having medical history, which is in the report of the Christian Medical College,

Vellore, which further suggests that the informant has long term treatment

of primary headache syndrome and seizure disorder and neurological issues

and it is before the alleged date of occurrence and the allegations are made

of dizziness and headache pursuant to the said alleged injury.

59. In paragraph 47 of the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the

petitioners with regard to the counter-affidavit of respondent-State, it has

been stated that the allegation in the present FIR is not used as statutory for

the first time to stall and mislead investigation but part of well documented

modus operandi adopted by the informant to intimidate the complainant and

investigating officers. The allegations are also there against the investigating

officer of Jharkhand police by the informant vide letter dated 17.06.2025

raised identical allegation against the investigating officer of police on his case.

Paragraph 47 of the said rejoinder affidavit is quoted herein below:

“47. That it is respectfully submitted that the allegation

in the present FIR is not used as a strategy for the first time

to stall and mislead investigation but part of a well-

documented modus operandi adopted by the Informant to

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-50- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

intimidate the complainants and the Investigating Officers.

The respondent is well aware of this fact as, the informant

vide letter dated 17.06.2025 has raised identical allegations

against the Investigating Officer of Police on his case. The

informant in the said letter at Sr. No. 19 stated "That I had

disclosed above-stated facts mentioned in paras 1 to 18

before the Case I.O.- Sri Deepak Narayan Singh during

my remanded period from 25.07.24 to 28.07.24. But all my

requests to him went in vain. The Case LO. threatened me

that 'If you do not sign the confessional statement,

then your wife and children will be put into Jail.' I had

no other option but to sign the confessional statement. This

confessional statement was never disclosed before me nor

was given for seeing. Further in the said "letter at Sr. No. 20

the informant states "That above stated facts mentioned in

paras 1 to 18 transpire that the then S.D.O. No.-3, Ranchi-

Sri Mukesh Kumar and Sri Sita Ram Baitha, the present S.D.O.

NO-3- Sri Anil Sharma, the DDO- Sri Chandrashekhar, the

D.A.O- Sri Parmanand Kumar and the S.D.C-Sri Hari Kishore

Mahto have fabricately implicated me in this false case by

means of a big conspiracy woven by them. Therefore, I

humbly pray you to kindly order or recommend for C.B.I/ED

probe into this case so that unbiased and impartial

investigation could be carried out and the real culprits could

be punished. For this, I will be highly obliged to your

kindness forever." The said DDO, Chandrasekhar is the

complainant of subject FIR, whose investigation under

PMLA,2002 is being conducted by the Directorate of

Enforcement, Ranchi. The Respondent being in knowledge

of this complaint already since 17.06.2025 and well aware of

his modus of weaponisation of allegation, chose to ignore all

the evidence against the allegations in the FIR.”

60. The objection raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the

State of Jharkhand with regard to filing of the rejoinder affidavit by Mr.

Debidatta Sarangi, Assistant Director of Directorate of Enforcement office of

Zonal Directorate, Ranchi zone is not acceptable in view of the fact that there

is precedent in the Jharkhand High Court that the affidavit is required to be

filed by the Pairvikar and not by the accused in a criminal case. The writ

petition has also been sworn by the Pairvikar and the same person has also

sworn the affidavit on behalf of the petitioners as Pairvikar in the writ petition

and that objection was not made with regard to filing of the present writ

petition and, as such, said objection is not acceptable.

( 2026:JHHC:6369 )

-51- W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2026

61. What has been discussed above and in light of the allegations made

against the petitioners, who happened to be the officials of the Enforcement

Directorate, who are investigating the high-profile cases of the State of

Jharkhand and the Jharkhand police has also lodged two cases against the

informant and on the allegations of that person, Jharkhand police has acted

in haste as discussed herein above, which prima facie suggests that on the

instruction of the high-ups, the police has acted so. The investigation is

required to be done fairly. The said allegation is made against the Central

Government Agency. In view of that, fair investigation by an independent

agency is the need of the hour. In that view of the matter, the Court finds

that there is an exceptional circumstance to handover the matter to the CBI.

62. In the result, prayer (ii) with regard to handover the matter to the CBI

for investigation is allowed. The case being Airport P.S. Case No.5 of 2026

filed before the Airport Police Station shall forthwith be transferred to the CBI.

The Director, CBI shall direct for registration of the case by the CBI and

investigate the same in accordance with law. The Officer-in-Charge, Airport

Police Station will hand over the entire documents with regard to Airport P.S.

Case No.5 of 2026 to the CBI forthwith.

63. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-CBI shall intimate

this order to the Director, CBI for the needful.

64. Accordingly, this criminal writ petition is partly allowed in above terms

and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated: 11

th

March, 2026

Ajay/ A.F.R.

Uploaded on

11

th

March, 2026