This article is written by Unnati V. Chhangani, a Fourth Year Law Student, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the suspicious murder case as there is partiality in State Police Investigation.
The single bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that it is just to transfer investigation to Central bureau of investigation from police officials. Reasoning being, biasedness, procedural irregularities, suppression of material evidence, and influence of high-ranking officials cast serious doubt on the fairness of a police investigation.
The petitioner expressed that, her husband, then serving as a General Manager in the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (HPPCL), was under immense pressure and mentally harassed by senior officers for resisting corrupt practices in a solar power project. The petitioner alleged that these senior officers are the root cause of her spouse’s death and there has been lacuna in police investigation which is another significant cause for incomplete justice to widow’s husband’s death.
Repercussion being, filing of writ petition of mandamus in the judicature of high court seeking transfer of the investigation concerning her husband’s suspicious death from the Himachal Pradesh Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). As the ongoing police investigation was bigoted, inefficient, and aimed at shielding high-ranking officials, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure a fair and impartial probe.
The counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner argued that, there has been some discrepancies in investigation from the SIT and there is a lack of veracity in their investigation.
The Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, according to the post-mortem report, the petitioner’s husband had likely died around the 13th or 14th of March, 2025.
He also called attention towards zero efforts made by the investigating agency to determine what had occurred between the 10th and 13th of March, 2025.
The Court noted that the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, failed to shed any light on this aspect.
It further observed that, despite the deceased’s family repeatedly alleging foul play from the very beginning, the SIT had not undertaken any investigation to ascertain what had transpired during the period between disappearance and the recovery of his body, which the Court found difficult to understand or justify.
The counsel for petitioner also emphasized that Despite filing of an FIR and rejection of anticipatory bail for accused Desh Raj by the High Court on 26.03.2025, the police:
- Did not arrest any accused,
- Did not interrogate them,
- Allegedly guarded the accused officers.
Furthermore, there was tampering of digital evidence as, A pen drive retreived from the deceased’s bodywas allegedly formatted or tampered with, and the SIT was evasive about it. Lastly it was contended that,
- The SIT members belonged to the same district as the accused,
- There was a palpable conflict of interest,
- And the State Government’s conduct showed a clear intent to suppress the case.
Hence, the court observed that it was appalled by the modus operandi in which the investigation indeed was going and all these issues flagged by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh raise grave doubts over the fairness of the investigation being conducted by SIT.
The court also referred to laws laid by apex court as to the power of High Court under Article 226 to direct an enquiry by the CBI by citing the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, UP and others, “Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that while none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct an enquiry by the CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such enquiry. Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that it is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an enquiry by the CBI.”
The court also cited that in Himanshu Kumar and other versus State of Chhattisgarh and others “Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the power to transfer an investigation must be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases and that an aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.”
Therefore, to give credence to the investigation so that the matter is investigated impartially, the Court allowed the petition and directed that the investigation in the matter be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the State Police, which shall carry out investigation in the matter, in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Ms. Kiran Negi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Case No.: CWP No. 6508 of 2025
Date: 25th May, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate, with M/s Ajay Kumar Sharma, Vivekanand and Chaman Negi, Advocates
Counsel For Respondent: Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General and Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 3 & 4. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.2-Corporation. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.5. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Sanjeev Kumar Gandhi, Senior Superintendent of Police, Shimla, Navdeep Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, Shimla, Shakti Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shimla and Vijay Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shimla, in person.
Read More: Ecological Preservation needs to be practical, not Symbolic: Supreme Court
