Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shahrukh Ziya Mohammad, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of Crime No.122/2024 registered with Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur, to the State Crime Investigation Department (CID). The crime pertained to a fatal hit-and-run incident on the intervening night of 24-25 February 2024, where a car driven by Ritika Malu under the influence of alcohol struck a two-wheeler from behind, killing two youngsters, Mohd. Hussain and Mohd. Ateque. The first information report was registered under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with non-bailable sections added later. The petitioner alleged that the investigating officer, PSI Parshuram Baval, deliberately delayed the investigation, allowed the accused to go free, removed evidence (liquor bottles), and acted in connivance with the accused's family. The petitioner claimed that the police failed to draw the scene panchnama promptly, delayed blood sample collection, did not record statements of eyewitnesses, and released the offending car without proper bond. The petitioner made several representations to higher authorities but received no response. The court examined the factual chronology, noting that the accused was arrested on the day of the incident but released on bail for bailable offences. Subsequently, non-bailable sections were added, and the police sought cancellation of bail and permission to re-arrest, which led to a series of legal proceedings. The accused eventually surrendered on 1 July 2024 but was released by the magistrate who deemed the arrest illegal. The State filed criminal revisions which were rejected, and an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC was pending. The court considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, who highlighted sixteen specific allegations of police misconduct. The court observed that the investigation was ongoing, the accused had been arrested, and the investigating officer had taken steps such as collecting blood samples, adding non-bailable sections, and seeking cancellation of bail. The court held that transfer of investigation is an extraordinary power to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias or failure of justice. The court found that the allegations, even if true, did not demonstrate such exceptional circumstances, as the investigation was progressing and the petitioner could raise his grievances before the trial court. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the investigation should continue under the local police, and directed the trial court to decide the pending application for cancellation of bail expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Investigation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Exceptional Circumstances - Petition seeking transfer of investigation to CID alleging police bias and deliberate lacunae - Court held that transfer of investigation is an extraordinary power to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias or failure of justice - Mere allegations of delay or procedural lapses do not warrant transfer - The court found that the investigation was progressing, the accused had been arrested, and the petitioner's grievances could be raised before the trial court - Petition dismissed (Paras 8-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of investigation from the local police to the State CID on grounds of alleged biased and improper investigation.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The investigation shall continue under the local police. The trial court is directed to decide the pending application under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail expeditiously.
Law Points
- Transfer of investigation
- Article 226
- fair investigation
- exceptional circumstances
- police bias
- judicial review of investigation
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 302
Criminal Writ Petition No. 441/2024
Vinay Joshi, Vrushali V. Joshi
Mr. A.G. Hunge for Petitioner; Mr. D.V. Chavhan, Senior Advocate/G.P. with Shri N.H. Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondents
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mumbai; Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City; PSO of PS Tahsil, Nagpur; PSI Parshuram Baval
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of investigation from local police to State CID.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing transfer of investigation of Crime No.122/2024 to the State Crime Investigation Department (CID) for fair, proper and impartial investigation.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the local police, particularly PSI Parshuram Baval, conducted a biased and improper investigation, deliberately delaying proceedings, destroying evidence, and acting in connivance with the accused's family, thereby depriving the victims' family of a fair trial.
Previous Decisions
The accused was arrested on 25.02.2024 and released on bail for bailable offences. Non-bailable sections were added on 02.03.2024. Police applied for cancellation of bail on 07.03.2024, which was rejected on 03.04.2024. Pre-arrest bail was rejected by Sessions Court on 24.05.2024 and by High Court on 26.06.2024. Accused surrendered on 01.07.2024 but was released by Magistrate on 02.07.2024 deeming arrest illegal. State's criminal revisions against these orders were rejected on 25.07.2024. An application under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail was pending before Sessions Court.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of investigation to CID under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the allegations of police bias and improper investigation constitute exceptional circumstances warranting transfer.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the investigating officer deliberately delayed registration of FIR, allowed accused to go free, removed liquor bottles from the car, delayed panchnama and blood sample collection, did not record statements of eyewitnesses, released the offending car without bond, and failed to take accused into custody, all in connivance with the accused's family.
Respondents (State) argued that the investigation was progressing, the accused had been arrested, and the petitioner's grievances could be raised before the trial court; no exceptional circumstances existed for transfer.
Ratio Decidendi
Transfer of investigation under Article 226 is an extraordinary power to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias or failure of justice. Mere allegations of delay or procedural lapses, without concrete evidence of bias, do not warrant transfer. The court must be satisfied that the investigation is not proceeding fairly or that the investigating agency is acting in a partisan manner. In this case, the investigation was ongoing, the accused had been arrested, and the petitioner's grievances could be addressed by the trial court, hence no transfer was justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue for consideration is limited to the extent – whether the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the investigation.
Transfer of investigation is an extraordinary power which can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias or failure of justice.
In the present case, the investigation is progressing, the accused has been arrested, and the petitioner can raise his grievances before the trial court.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 25.02.2024. Accused arrested and released on bail same day. Non-bailable sections added on 02.03.2024. Police applied for cancellation of bail on 07.03.2024, rejected on 03.04.2024. Pre-arrest bail rejected by Sessions Court on 24.05.2024 and by High Court on 26.06.2024. Accused surrendered on 01.07.2024 but released by Magistrate on 02.07.2024. State's criminal revisions rejected on 25.07.2024. Application under Section 439(2) CrPC pending. Petitioner filed this writ petition on 30.08.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 304, 427
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 184, 185
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 439(2)
