The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the CBI to conduct further investigation into an FIR registered under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, after finding that the police version regarding the detention and release of the accused was contradicted by the very person to whom custody was allegedly handed over. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 221]

The Court quashed the charge-framing order and directed CBI investigation after finding that the person to whom the accused was allegedly handed over on release categorically denied the police version, casting doubt on the credibility of the investigation.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "It is the admitted position that Lovkesh Kumar was taken away for interrogation in the early hours on 11.08.2024. However, his arrest has been shown only post mid-night on 12.08.2024. The explanation given by the investigating agency that Lovkesh Kumar had been released at 11:00 a.m. on 11.08.2024 to one Ramesh Kumar and thereafter, arrested at night, has itself been found to be in violation of settled procedure by various police officers including an SIT constituted post the order of this Court dated 13.03.2026."

The judge noted that, "the findings of various police officers including the SIT which while holding that the release of Lovkesh Kumar to Ramesh Kumar amounted to a procedural violation but the investigation itself was conducted in a fair and impartial manner cannot be accepted at it's face value in view of the categorical statement of Ramesh Kumar that the custody of Lovkesh Kumar was never handed over to him and he had signed certain papers only on the morning of 12.08.2024 when he alongwith Kusum Rani (petitioner No.1), wife of Lovkesh Kumar had gone to visit Lovkesh Kumar at the police station."

Stating that the prosecution version "appears to be somewhat doubtful", the Court said, "where any person appears to have been falsely nominated as an accused by the police in a case where the minimum sentence is 10 years rigorous imprisonment then, for a fair and impartial investigation to take place it is imperative that the investigation should be handed over to an independent agency for the unvarnished truth to surface."

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Kusum Rani, wife of accused Lovkesh Kumar, seeking further investigation into FIR, registered at Hisar, alleging recovery of 900 intoxicating tablets from her husband.

As per the prosecution version, Kumar was apprehended late at night on 11.08.2024 based on secret information, and 900 tablets of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate were recovered from him. The FIR was registered around 1:00 a.m. on 12.08.2024. However, the petitioner-wife contended that her husband had actually been taken away by CIA-II police officials as early as 5:38 a.m. on 11.08.2024, an event captured on CCTV and was unlawfully detained through the day, with records later manipulated to show a midnight arrest on 12.08.2024.

Following representations to senior police authorities, an internal enquiry was conducted. The first Investigating Officer and an ASI maintained that Lovkesh Kumar had been interrogated and released by 11:00 a.m. on 11.08.2024 to one Ramesh Kumar, a stated acquaintance.

However, Ramesh Kumar, when examined, categorically denied that custody was ever handed over to him, stating that he had only accompanied the petitioner to the police station on the morning of 12.08.2024 to deliver food, where his signatures were obtained as a mere formality. Based on this inquiry, disciplinary action was recommended only against the ASI concerned for a procedural lapse, without any further action on the substantive allegation of false implication.

During the pendency of the petition, the Court on 13.03.2026 directed the State to move an application for further investigation, pursuant to which a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted. The SIT's report dated 16.05.2026 concluded that no evidence had emerged to establish that the FIR was false or that the accused was falsely implicated, though it flagged the manner of handing over custody as "suspicious."

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the explanation of release and subsequent re-arrest could not be believed, particularly since Ramesh Kumar had unequivocally denied the prosecution's version, and the CCTV recording of the accused being taken away at 5:38 a.m. was undisputed.

It was submitted that it was implausible for a person released at 11:00 a.m. to commit a fresh NDPS offence that same night. Reliance was placed on State of West Bengal & others v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengal & others, 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 141, among other precedents, to argue that courts possess the power to direct CBI investigation without the State's consent, and that such directions could be issued even after submission of a police report.

The State opposed the plea, contending that the investigation, including by the SIT, had been conducted fairly and had found no substance in the allegation of false implication, notwithstanding the procedural lapse in the manner of release.

The Court extensively examined case laws on the scope of judicial power to order CBI investigation, including State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which held that further investigation or re-investigation could be directed even after a charge sheet had been filed, and that such power exists independent of the limitations under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It also relied on Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, which emphasised that the stage of a case cannot be a governing factor where the purpose of justice demands a fair investigation.

Applying these principles, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the prosecution's explanation was "somewhat doubtful," particularly given Ramesh Kumar's categorical denial that custody had ever been transferred to him.

The Court quashed the charge-framing order dated 13.11.2024 and directed that further investigation be handed over to the CBI, to be completed within three months, with liberty to file a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (Section 193(8) BNSS).

It also directed that both the original and supplementary reports be placed before the Trial Court, which shall proceed in accordance with law as per the principles laid down in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak, 2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 197.

Title: Kusum Rani and another v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read order