Jharkhand High Court Transfers Probe Into Disappearance Of Minor Girl Missing Since 2020 To CBI; Cites Cross-State Digital Trails
The Jharkhand High Court has transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the investigation into the disappearance of a minor girl who has remained untraced since October 2020, observing that the case involves grave complexity, cross-jurisdictional dimensions and digital trails extending across multiple States.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of the missing girl. The Court noted that the girl, aged about 14 years at the time of her disappearance, had left her residence on October 16, 2020 at around 10:45 AM to attend tuition classes but never returned. An FIR was registered at Pindrajora Police Station, Bokaro, on the same day.
The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that despite the lapse of more than five and a half years, the authorities had failed to trace or recover her daughter, thereby infringing her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, a bicycle, slippers and notebooks belonging to the girl were found scattered on the road leading towards Kurma Hospital shortly after she left home. The family thereafter repeatedly approached the police and other authorities seeking her recovery.
The investigation was initially conducted by the district police and was subsequently handed over to the CID on April 20, 2026. During the proceedings, the High Court examined the case diary and noted that the investigation had included attempts to conduct Narco-Analysis Tests on four suspects. While three of the tests were conducted in January 2023, the test concerning one suspect could not be conducted on the ground of medical unfitness. The Court also noted that the investigation had proceeded on the basis that the minor girl had been kidnapped.
The Bench expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the investigation. On June 8, 2026, after examining the case diary, the Court observed that there had been no fresh endeavour by the investigating officer beyond the investigation already undertaken by the Bokaro Police, with the material substantially repeating earlier witness statements.
The Court subsequently interacted with senior CID officials and was informed that a Special Investigation Team had been constituted. During the proceedings, a member of the technical team informed the Court that certain clues had led investigators to Gopalganj in Bihar, where a woman had been identified whose physical appearance matched that of the missing girl to an extent of 90 per cent. However, the investigation agency had not been able to conclusively establish the identity of the woman. When the Court questioned the basis for the 90 per cent match, it was informed that the assessment was based on e-KYC information.
The Court also questioned why advanced technological tools such as gait analysis were not being employed. The technical members of the SIT informed the Court that such technology was presently unavailable in Jharkhand. The Court thereafter considered whether the investigation ought to be transferred to a central agency.
The State informed the Court that the investigation had revealed cross-boundary and inter-State dimensions, with digital activity traced to Delhi, Telangana and West Bengal. The investigation also involved obtaining data from foreign entities including Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC. The State further submitted that the CID required assistance from the CBI because of the complexity of the digital trails and the absence of advanced forensic resources within the State. The Advocate General also informed the Court that the State would have no objection to the investigation being transferred to the CBI if the Court considered such a course necessary for tracing the missing girl.
The High Court noted that the State's willingness to facilitate assistance from a central agency indicated that the State machinery was committed to locating the missing girl and ensuring that the investigation was not thwarted. The Bench thereafter considered the legal principles governing transfer of investigation to the CBI.
The Court observed that there is no inflexible guideline governing the exercise of the power, but such a direction cannot be issued routinely. It noted that the power may be exercised where an incident has national or international ramifications, where necessary to enforce fundamental rights, or where the complexity and scale of the allegations require the expertise of a central agency. The Court held:
“…It goes without saying that for invoking this power, the concerned Court must be satisfied that the material placed prima facie discloses commission of offences and necessitates a CBI investigation to ensure the fundamental right to a fair and impartial investigation, or where the complexity, scale, or national ramification of such allegations demands expertise of central agency.”
The Bench further held that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, can direct transfer of an investigation to the CBI where such transfer is necessary to unearth the truth and secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases involving grave complexity, cross-jurisdictional or national ramifications, or where the scale and intricacy of the incident requires specialised expertise and resources.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the minor girl had remained missing since October 16, 2020 despite the FIR having been registered on the same day, and that the investigation conducted by the district police had not yielded the requisite progress. The Court also took note of the subsequent transfer of the investigation to the CID, but found it necessary to direct further investigation by the CBI in view of the circumstances brought on record.
Accordingly, the Bench directed that the investigation in the matter be forthwith handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Case Title: XXX (Name Redacted) v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Cr.) (HB) (DB) No. 314 of 2026
Appearance:For the Petitioner: Mr. Vincent Rohit Marki, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Rohitashya Roy, A.G.; Mr. Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G.
For the CBI: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI; Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI