The High Court has affirmed that extraordinary delays and lack of progress by State agencies, especially in sensitive cases like long-term missing persons, can justify transfer of investigation to the CBI under Article 226 to protect fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The decision follows Supreme Court precedent, reiterates that such transfers remain exceptional, and is binding within Uttarakhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/216/2024 of MAHANT SUKDEV MUNI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND CNR UKHC010029082024 |
| Date of Registration | 01-03-2024 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law | When is it appropriate for a High Court to transfer investigation from State Police to CBI under Article 226 due to ineffective State investigation? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that extraordinary delay and ineffective investigation by State authorities in a missing person case violated the right to fair and proper investigation, constituting a breach of Articles 14 and 21. In such rare and exceptional situations, transfer to CBI is warranted to safeguard constitutional rights and ensure justice. The judgment reaffirmed that this extraordinary power must be used sparingly, guided by the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. The prolonged absence of progress despite repeated directions justified transferring the investigation to the CBI. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Himanshu Kumar and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Right to fair investigation is integral to Articles 14 and 21; transfer to CBI is an exceptional measure exercised in rare circumstances where justice mandates. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Missing person (Mahant) not traced since 2017, despite seven years of investigation; repeated shifting of investigating officers and agencies; final reports filed and rejected; investigation recently transferred to CBCID but still inconclusive; hence writ petition filed seeking CBI transfer. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and State agencies within Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (to the extent of reasoning and procedural standards) |
| Follows | Himanshu Kumar and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that prolonged, inconclusive, and lackadaisical investigations by State police, especially in serious cases, can violate Articles 14 and 21, warranting transfer to CBI.
- Clarifies that transfer to CBI is an exceptional remedy—Courts must exercise this power sparingly, in line with Supreme Court guidance.
- Underscores the importance for lawyers to demonstrate both exceptional delay and failure of State agencies to trigger CBI transfer.
- Advocates should document all lapses and unsuccessful progress reports when seeking such transfers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recounted the persistent failure of State investigating authorities over seven years to trace the missing Mahant, despite formation of multiple teams and repeated judicial directions.
- Citing Himanshu Kumar and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court emphasized that the extraordinary power to transfer investigation to the CBI is reserved for rare and exceptional cases.
- The right to fair and effective investigation flows from Articles 14 and 21; procedural delay and inaction can infringe those rights.
- Noting that mere transfer of investigation between State agencies or filing unsatisfactory progress reports does not meet the constitutional mandate, the Court found an exceptional situation justifying CBI involvement.
- The Court ordered the immediate transfer of all records to the CBI to ensure fair investigation and protection of the missing person’s fundamental rights.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Investigation ongoing for over seven years with no conclusion; authorities repeatedly transferred case but failed to achieve results.
- State investigation careless; key persons (e.g., person in possession of missing Mahant’s phone) not interrogated.
- Fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 are violated; fair investigation requires CBI intervention; supported by Supreme Court precedents.
State:
- State is conducting investigation sincerely; multiple efforts made to trace missing Mahant.
- Investigation recently transferred to CBCID with continued progress.
- Supreme Court has held (Himanshu Kumar & others) that transfer to CBI is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly and not for routine or every unsolved crime.
CBI:
- CBI overburdened with cases; cases like the present need not ordinarily be transferred.
- Requests that the case not be transferred in the absence of truly exceptional circumstances.
Factual Background
On 16.09.2017, a prominent Mahant and spokesperson of Akhara Parishad disappeared during a train journey from Haridwar to Mumbai. An FIR was registered on 17.09.2017 under Section 365 IPC at P.S. Kankhal, Haridwar. Despite formation of multiple search teams and agencies, his whereabouts remained unknown over seven years. Judicial interventions at Magistrate and Sessions stages failed to prompt progress; investigation was eventually transferred to CBCID but remained inconclusive. The petitioner sought CBI transfer through the present writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted Section 365 IPC (kidnapping or abduction with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person) as the core offence under investigation.
- Discussed Article 21 of the Constitution (protection of life and personal liberty), expanding it to encompass the right to fair, effective, and timely investigation.
- Cited Supreme Court jurisprudence restricting use of powers under Article 226 to transfer investigations to CBI to rare and exceptional circumstances.
- No other statutory “reading down” or expansive interpretation undertaken.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court adheres to Supreme Court doctrine that CBI transfers are extraordinary remedies, citing Himanshu Kumar and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2022).