SAGUPTA PARVEEN@PRAVEEN vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 187 of 2026
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Sagupta Parveen @ Praveen …. Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through
its Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Bhubaneswar

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Bhubaneswar

3. The Inspector-in-Charge, Chandaka
Police Station

4. Tuhin Adak
5. Rohan Das
6. Arman Kumar Parida










….
Opposite Parties

Advocates for the parties who appeared through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner : Mr. Durga Prasad Dhal, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Amitabh Pradhan,
Additional Standing Counsel
(for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3)

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
……………………………………………………………………………………
Date of Hearing: 06.05.2026 Date of Judgment : 11.05.2026
…………………………………………………………………………………….

Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMP has been filed by the Petitioner for a direction
to the Opposite Party No.2 to take action on her FIR at Annexure-1 and
investigate the case properly and also take appropriate action against the
1 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

accused persons who are involved in the brutal murder of her brother.
ALLEGATION
2. On 17.11.2025, the younger brother of the petitioner who
was pursuing his study in Viswass School & College of Nursing (in
short “College”), died in mysterious circumstances by hanging and the
College did not give them correct information and after many calls,
they were informed. They came to Bhubaneswar and found her brother
lying dead in the hospital. She suspected that her brother has been
murdered and the authority of that College and his roommates were
involved in this matter. She lodged complaint leading to registration of
Chandaka P.S. Case No. 523 dated 17.11.2025 under Section – 103(1)
and 3(5) of the BNS against the Opposite Parties No 4 to 6 and
“authority of Viswass College”.
3 . In spite of registration of the case, investigation was not
conducted properly and belongings of the deceased were seized after
one and half months of registration of the case. Without conducting
proper investigation, the police is insisting that it is a case of suicide
even though the bolt on the door of the room of the deceased was found
to intact (in spite of claims that the door was broken as it was locked
from inside and injuries were found on the back and finger of the
deceased during post mortem examination.
2 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

SUBMISSION
4. Referring to the statement of one Sujogya Suman Sahoo,
recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has stated that after hearing
shouts that the deceased had committed suicide, all of them went to the
third floor and there a first year GNM student Arman Raj Parida was
saying that his roommate Md. Azim Uddin (deceased) committed
suicide in Room No.40. So they broke open the door and found that
Md. Azim Uddin with the help of a yellow rope from the transom
window which was above the door committed suicide. So they cut the
rope and Tofan Kumar tried to give him CPR and he, Tofan Kumar,
Arman and warden Harish Chandra Sir took the deceased by an auto
rickshaw to the nearby Mendhasala Hospital but the doctor there
declared him dead. He submitted that Arman Raj Parida who has been
named in the FIR as an accused has not been examined during
investigation. He also submitted that the scientific team did not find any
marks that the door in question had been forced open. The photograph
of the deceased reveals that he has sustained injury on the knuckle of
the forefinger as well as the middle finger of his right hand which is
supported by the post-mortem report, where it is stated that there is a
contusion of size 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. over left hand extensor aspect. As
3 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

per the photographs of the deceased, his mouth was open and froth was
coming out of his mouth, but in the post-mortem report it has been
stated that his mouth is closed. The phone of the deceased has been sent
to the SFSL for chemical examination along with viscera but before
receipt of the examination report, final form-no clue dated 28.02.2026
has been hurriedly submitted, when the matter was subjudice before this
Court and instructions had been called for by this Court from the I.O.
He also submitted that the deceased was staying in a hostel, which
normally has CCTV cameras but investigation in that regard has not
been conducted, in order to shield the accused and final report has been
submitted hurriedly to clear the name of the college. No investigation
has been conducted to find out as to why the deceased committed
suicide.
5. Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel
submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is
the subject matter for trial and cannot be decided by this Court in this
CRLMP. If she has any grievance, she can challenge the final report in
the appropriate forum. He submitted that in her affidavit the I.O. has
stated that since from the final medical opinion, witness statements,
spot of hanging and circumstantial evidence, the death of Md. Azim
Uddin prima facie appeared to be a case of suicidal hanging, without
4 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

waiting for the report from the SFSL, final report was submitted on
28.02.2026. So there is nothing suspicious about her conduct. In this
case, the report of the viscera of the deceased does not suggest the
presence of any poisonous substances. He also submitted that in the
statements of the witnesses, it has been mentioned that the rope used for
committing suicide was used for drying clothes. It is also stated in the
final report that the investigation can be reopened if any incriminating
evidences are found from the report of the SFSL or from any other
source.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
6. In the case of Babubhai vs State of Gujarat & Others : 2010
(12) SCC 254 , the Supreme Court has held as follows :
“43. In the instant case, admittedly, the High Court
has given detailed reasons for coming to the
conclusion that the investigation has been totally one-
sided, biased and mala fide. One party has been
favoured by the investigating agency. The natural
corollary to this finding is that the other party has been
harassed in an unwarranted manner. Thus, the cause
of the other party has been prejudiced.
44. The charge sheets filed by the investigating agency
in both the cases are against the same set of accused.
A charge sheet is the outcome of an investigation. If the
investigation has not been conducted fairly, we are of
the view that such vitiated investigation cannot give
rise to a valid charge sheet. Such investigation would
ultimately prove to be precursor of miscarriage of
5 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

criminal justice. In such a case the court would simply
try to decipher the truth only on the basis of guess or
conjunctures as the whole truth would not come before
it. It will be difficult for the court to determine how the
incident took place wherein three persons died and so
many persons including the complainant and accused
got injured.
45. Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also
part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles
20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,
investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as
it is the minimum requirement of rule of law.
Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an
investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where
non- interference of the court would ultimately result in
failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a
situation, it may be in the interest of justice that
independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a
fresh investigation.”

In the case of Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India &
Others : (2013) 15 SCC 578, the Supreme Court has held :-
“41. From the various decisions relied upon by the
petitioner counsel as well as by respondents counsel,
the following principles can be culled out.
41.1 The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its
relevancy.
41.2 Unless there is an express or implied
constitutional prohibition or other law, evidence
placed as a result of even an illegal search or seizure
is not liable to be shut out.
41.3 If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is
visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try
to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiency,
Courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand
6 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

appropriately within the framework of law.
41.4 It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the
Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought
on record so that there might not be miscarriage of
justice.
41.5 In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is
carried on without any deficiency, in appropriate cases
this Court can even constitute Special Investigation
Team and also give appropriate directions to the
Central and State Governments and other authorities
to give all required assistance to such specially
constituted investigating team in order to book the real
culprits and for effective conduct of the prosecution.
41.6 While entrusting the criminal prosecution with
other instrumentalities of State or by constituting a
Special Investigation Team, the High Court or this
Court can also monitor such investigation in order to
ensure proper conduct of the prosecution.
41.7 In appropriate cases even if the chargesheet is
filed it is open for this Court or even for the High
Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed
over to CBI or to any other independent agency in
order to do complete justice.
41.8 In exceptional circumstances the Court in order to
prevent miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers
necessary may direct for investigation de novo.”

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
7. It is therefore no longer res integra , that Courts can direct
for de novo investigation, handing over investigation to a specialized
agency, if satisfied that a case has not been properly investigated into or
the investigation is biased.
8. In the concluding portion of the final report it is stated as
7 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

follows:-
“Received the S. Note of Miss Sonali Singh Parmar,
IPS, ACP, Zone VI, Bhubaneswar UPD in which she
opined that it is case of FR Mistake of Fact
U/s103(1)/3(5) BNS against the FIR named accused
persons. Made prayer to Dr. Laxmikant Behera, M.O.,
FMT Department, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar
regarding the following queries. Obtained spot visit
report of S.O., DFSL. Bhubaneswar vide Sl. No.
485/DFSL, dtd. 17.11.2025. The report is attached
here with. Submitted compliance to the S. Note of Miss
Sonali Singh Parmar, IPS, ACP, Zone VI,
Bhubaneswar UPD, to DCP, Bhubaneswar UPD with
a prayer to submit FF as FR Mistake of Fact, U/S
103(1)/3(5) BNS against the FIR named accused
persons. Received order from DCP, Bhubaneswar
UPD and submitted FF as FR Mistake of Fact, U/S
103(1)/3(5) BNS against the FIR named accused
persons vide F.F. No. 143 dtd. 28.02.2026.”

9. The submission of the learned State counsel that it is stated in
the final report that the investigation can be reopened if any
incriminating evidences are found from the report of the SFSL or from
any other source, is therefore not correct.
10. I do not want to make detailed references to the contents of
the case diary or the aspects in the investigation which have convinced
me that investigation in the case has been closed hastily, as this may
prejudice the accused persons and influence the subsequent
investigation.
8 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

11. But some reference is necessary as after perusing the case
diary and the final report, I find that : -
i) Arman Raj Parida, who is named in the FIR and in the
statement of Sujogya Suman Sahoo has not been examined.
ii) On 23.02.2026, prayer was made by IO for sending the
exhibits to SFSL.
iii) There were 7 instructions in the supervision report dated
26.02.2026 should have been complied with before closing the
investigation and submitting final form.
iv) In the case diary, on 25.02.2026 it is stated that valuable
instructions were received from the ACP, Zone VI for completion in
investigation but the supervision note is dated 26.02.2026.
v) It is stated in the case diary that on 27.02.2026 compliance
was submitted to the ACP Zone VI, but such compliance is not part of
the case diary submitted to the Court.
vi) Although up-to-date case diary had been called for on
07.04.2026 and by that time final report had been submitted, but the
relevant entry/ page of the case diary stating about filing of final report
is not available in the case diary.
vii) There was no accused in custody, to justify the haste in
which final report was submitted in the case.
9 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

viii) No effort has been made during investigation to find out as to
why the deceased committed suicide.
12. The brother of the deceased has admittedly died an unnatural
death.
13. In the opinion of the I.O., from the final medical opinion,
witness statements, spot of hanging and circumstantial evidence, the
death of Md. Azim Uddin, prima facie appeared to be a case of suicidal
hanging but no attempt has been made to find out the reason for such
suicide.
14. Without conducting any investigation to find out the reason
for his death (if he committed suicide - the reason as why he committed
suicide), without trying to contact or question / interrogate the persons
named in the FIR, and without waiting for the report of the SFSL, the
I.O. has submitted final report hastily even though no accused was in
custody and while this Court was in seisin over the matter.
15. But in view of the above discussion and gaps and question
marks in the investigation, I am satisfied that in the interest of justice,
the case should be investigated into by the Crime Branch of the Odisha
Police.
16. The case diary and all connected records be handed over to
the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Bhubaneswar by the I.I.C.
10 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of

Chandaka Police Station within a period of ten days for nominating a
competent officer to investigate into the case.
17. With the above observation and direction, the CRLMP is
disposed of.

………………………
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge



Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated, the 11 May, 2026 /RKS/ Sukanta


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 27-May-2026 22:04:29
11 11
CRLMP No.187 of 2026 Page of