CBI Probe Is An Extraordinary Remedy, Cannot Be Ordered Merely On Allegations Of Police Partiality: P&H High Court

The Court consequently refused to transfer the extortion and firing investigations to the CBI or constitute a separate Special Investigation Team, while directing supervision by an IPS officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.

The Court was hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking protection of a couple’s life and liberty, preservation of electronic evidence, and an independent investigation into their allegations of illegal detention, custodial intimidation, demands for illegal gratification and removal of property from their residence.

A Bench of Justice Manisha Batra observed: “The power of a Constitutional Court to direct investigation by the CBI or another independent agency is wide but it is extraordinary. In the very decision on which the petitioners rely, the Constitution Bench cautioned that such a direction is not to be issued routinely, nor merely because a party alleges partiality on the part of the local police and that the power is to be exercised ‘sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations’, where it becomes necessary to lend credibility to the investigation and instil public confidence, where the incident has national or international ramifications, or where it is necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights.”

Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai appeared for the petitioners. Additional Advocate General Ferry Sofat appeared for the State of Punjab.

Background

The petitioners claimed that they belonged to a settled agricultural family and had no criminal antecedents. One of them had served as the village Lambardar for nearly two decades.

Their grievance arose from police action allegedly connected with their estranged son, whom they claimed to have publicly disowned and disinherited through a public notice and civil proceedings. According to them, their son lived abroad and the police had been pressuring them to secure his return because of his alleged involvement in criminal cases.

An extortion case was initially registered against another person over threatening calls and ransom demands. The second petitioner was subsequently nominated as an accused, while the first petitioner was allegedly implicated through a disclosure statement.

The petitioners alleged that police personnel in civilian clothes entered their residence at night and took the second petitioner away without communicating the grounds of arrest or preparing an arrest memo. They claimed that the police subsequently showed him as having been arrested from a bus stand and demanded illegal gratification while pressuring the family to bring their son back.

The second petitioner was granted regular bail in that case. He was subsequently arrested in another extortion case and again secured regular bail.

A separate case concerning a firing incident was also registered in which the petitioners’ son was named as an accused. The petitioners alleged that, after they submitted representations to senior police and vigilance authorities, police officials again entered their residence at night, took them away and removed the CCTV/DVR system, cash and jewellery.

The State denied the allegations of unlawful detention and asserted that the arrests were made in accordance with law. It submitted that the DVR had been seized as case property and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It further stated that the investigations were being conducted under the supervision of the concerned Deputy Superintendents of Police.

Court’s Observations

The High Court observed that the constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 were not confined to persons without criminal accusations. Referring to D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), it reiterated that an arrest must comply with constitutional and statutory safeguards irrespective of the gravity of the allegation or the antecedents attributed to the person arrested.

The Court further noted that the safeguards concerning identification of arresting personnel, preparation of an arrest memo, intimation to a relative and communication of the grounds of arrest were reflected in Sections 36, 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It observed: “The requirement of a fair investigation is an essential facet of the constitutional guarantee of fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal’s case (supra) has held that Article 21 takes within its fold the rights of the victim as well as those of the accused and that the State is under a duty to ensure a fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers.”

The Court added that the registration of criminal cases did not authorise an investigating agency to act outside the law or disregard the safeguards available to an accused.

The High Court held that recognition of the right to a fair investigation did not entitle a litigant to have the investigation transferred from the State police as a matter of course.

Relying on State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010), K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID (2013) and Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2016), it said that an investigation may be transferred only in rare and exceptional circumstances.

Although the material did not justify transferring the investigations, the Court found that the petitioners’ grievance could not be dismissed as entirely unsubstantiated. The State admitted that the DVR had been taken from their residence, while the parties had conflicting accounts about the time, place and manner in which the second petitioner was taken into custody.

The Court said that these disputes were capable of verification through arrest documents, general diary entries, medical-examination records, production records, CCTV footage, call-detail records and location data.

It observed: “It must nevertheless be observed that the safeguards under Article 22(1) are not matters which the State can establish by a bare assertion of compliance, when an arrestee alleges that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden lies on the police to prove compliance, ordinarily by a contemporaneous record, and neither the bare information of arrest nor a vague diary entry is a substitute for it.”

The Court relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) in this regard.

The Court noted that the DVR was both case property in the firing case and a potential contemporaneous record of what occurred at the petitioners’ residence. It could reveal the identity and number of persons who entered the premises, the time and manner of entry, and other circumstances relevant to the competing versions.

The Court underscored: “So far as the DVR is concerned, its custody with the police is admitted. It is at once case property in FIR No.101 and, potentially, a contemporaneous record of what transpired at the residence of the petitioners on the night in question, including the number and identity of the persons who entered, the manner of entry and the time, and it thus bears upon the allegations of the petitioners as much as on the case of the State. Electronic records are more susceptible to tampering and alteration than other forms of evidence and the law insists on safeguards to ensure their source and authenticity.”

The Court recognised that a criminal investigation ordinarily falls within the investigating agency’s domain and that courts should not substitute their assessment for that of the Investigating Officer. However, where allegations concerning the manner of investigation had a foundation, constitutional courts could issue directions to maintain fairness and confidence.

Referring to Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014), the Court distinguished monitoring intended to ensure a free and fair investigation from judicial supervision of its manner and outcome.

It held that supervision by a senior IPS officer within the departmental hierarchy was proportionate to the material before it and would neither displace the Investigating Officer’s statutory role nor reflect adversely upon the State police as a whole.

The Court observed: “Such an arrangement would provide an additional level of caution and would also ensure that the allegations raised by the petitioners, including those relating to the preservation and examination of electronic evidence, are duly considered. It is proportionate to what has been shown, does not displace the statutory role of the investigating officer, and casts no reflection on the State police as a whole.”

The supervising officer was directed not to interfere with the Investigating Officer’s independent assessment of the evidence or dictate the outcome of the investigations.

Conclusion

The High Court disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on the allegations in the criminal cases or the petitioners’ defence.

It directed the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to ensure that the three investigations were supervised by an IPS officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police who was not directly connected with them.

The supervising officer was directed to monitor the investigations and ensure that they proceeded fairly, objectively and in accordance with law. The officer was also required to ensure the preservation and lawful examination of the DVR, the forensic report, CCTV footage and other electronic evidence.

The petitioners’ allegations concerning illegal detention, demands for money and removal or destruction of electronic evidence were directed to be considered in accordance with law. The investigating agency remained free to proceed independently, and the Court clarified that its order expressed no opinion on the merits or the involvement of any accused.

Cause Title: Daljit Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai; Advocates Arnav Ghai and Gaurav Datta

Respondents: Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General

Click here to read/download Judgment