Jharkhand High Court Orders CBI Probe Into FIR Against ED Officers Over Alleged Assault On Accused At Ranchi Office

The Jharkhand High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered by the Jharkhand Police against officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), while directing that the investigation be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure a fair probe. The case concerns allegations relating to an incident that took place at the ED's Ranchi Zonal Office during the questioning of an accused in the Peyjal scam.Previously, the High Court had stayed the investigation. At that stage, the Court recorded the petitioners' submission that on January 15, 2026, at around 6:00 AM, following a late-night communication, a substantial police force arrived at the Directorate of Enforcement's premises in Ranchi and attempted to treat the office as a crime scene, allegedly disrupting the functioning of the central agency. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi rejected the State of Jharkhand's preliminary objection that the matter could not be heard by the Court on the ground that the Bench did not have the assigned roster.The State argued that the case could not be entertained as the Bench lacked roster allocation. However, the Court rejected this contention, noting that the roster expressly included criminal writ petitions relating to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (CBI) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, which squarely covered the present matter. The Court also took exception to the State repeatedly raising such objections and recorded its displeasure regarding the arguments advanced. It noted:“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… In a case, where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made 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”Arguing on merits, the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the informant, Santosh Kumar, is the principal accused in a large-scale misappropriation of government funds amounting to approximately ₹23 crores from the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department of the Government of Jharkhand. According to the ED, Santosh Kumar appeared at the Ranchi Zonal Office without any prior summons, notice, or schedule. On his request, the officers agreed only to a limited preliminary interaction.The ED further submitted that around 1:20 PM, when the informant was being questioned regarding his alleged role in the Peyjal scam, he became evasive and agitated. In what the agency described as a sudden and unprovoked attempt to disrupt the proceedings, the informant allegedly picked up a glass water jug kept on the table and struck it against his own head, causing a minor scalp injury before the staff present could restrain him. The ED stated that the informant was immediately taken to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi, where an OPD card (Registration No. 2719) was prepared. It was submitted that in the medical record the informant himself stated that the injury was self-inflicted. He was treated for a superficial scalp wound and discharged at about 3:30 PM.The ED argued that its officers were acting in the course of their official duties and therefore are protected under Section 67 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Further, it contended that Section 109(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 had been deliberately invoked to make the offence appear cognizable, enabling the police to register an FIR without prior authorization from the Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.Highlighting the sensitivity of its work, the ED further submitted that the Ranchi Zonal Office is presently handling several high-profile investigations involving influential political figures and senior bureaucrats, including matters relating to the Chief Minister, former Minister Alamgir Alam, and senior IAS officers such as Pooja Singhal and Chhavi Ranjan. Opposing the petition, the State of Jharkhand argued that law and order is a State subject, and once a complaint alleging assault was brought to the notice of the police, the State authorities were justified in registering and investigating the FIR. The State further contended that Section 67 of the PMLA provides protection only for acts done in good faith, and good faith is defined under Section 2(11) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the State, the acts alleged in the FIR could not be said...

Jharkhand High Court Orders CBI Probe Into FIR Against ED Officers Over Alleged Assault On Accused At Ranchi Office

Rushil Batra

Tags