Alleged custodial disappearance of Bhojpur man: Patna High Court transfers probe to CBI over delayed, compromised investigation

Sanoj Kumar, the petitioner’s son, allegedly informed his family on 13 August 2025 that he had been apprehended by Excise Police officials near Kali Mandir, Dharahara Musahar Toli, on suspicion of consuming liquor.

The petitioner found Sanoj’s motorcycle abandoned near the alleged place of apprehension and lodged Bihiya P.S. Case No. 296 of 2025 on 14 August 2025 seeking his son’s recovery.

The petitioner alleged that Sanoj had been brutally assaulted, dragged by a cloth around his neck, and taken away in an Excise Police vehicle; CCTV footage allegedly captured the detention and assault.

One of Sanoj’s mobile phones was later found in the possession of an Excise Police official and handed over to the Investigating Officer only on 23/24 August 2025, but it was not promptly sent for forensic examination.

During the writ proceedings, the Court found that the investigation had made little progress for approximately ten months.

Seven members of the Excise raiding team were identified as suspects, and their statements were found to be inconsistent.

Following repeated judicial intervention, the suspects were arrested, the mobile phones were sent for forensic examination, witnesses’ statements were recorded or proposed to be recorded under Section 183(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and technical assistance was sought from the State Crime Records Bureau.

The petitioner nevertheless sought transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation on the ground that the State investigation was biased and compromised because the suspected persons were Excise Police officials.

1. Whether the investigation into Bihiya P.S. Case No. 296 of 2025 had been conducted fairly, impartially, and in accordance with law by the State investigating agency.

2. Whether, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the investigation ought to be transferred to the CBI to secure a fair, honest, complete, and credible investigation.

3. Whether consequential directions were required concerning the transfer of case materials, urgency of investigation, constitution of a CBI team, and submission of an action-taken report.

The Court applied the constitutional guarantees of equality, life and personal liberty, and safeguards against unlawful detention under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

It relied on the principle that criminal investigation must be fair, unbiased, honest, impartial, and directed towards discovering the truth, as explained in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak, (2013) 5 SCC 762.

In Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677, the Supreme Court recognised that allegations against police personnel may justify investigation by an independent agency such as the CBI.

Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha, (2014) 11 SCC 527, supports transfer to the CBI where influential accused persons have caused the investigation to proceed in a biased or improper direction.

The Court principally relied on K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID, (2013) 12 SCC 480, which holds that transfer of investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases where necessary to do justice, instil public confidence, or secure a fair, honest and complete investigation.

The Court also referred to Section 183(1), BNSS, concerning recording of witness statements before a Magistrate, and directed forensic and scientific investigation as part of a proper investigation.

The Court held that the State investigation had failed to meet the standard of a fair and impartial investigation.

Despite the FIR being registered on 14 August 2025, the investigating agency did not promptly interrogate the Excise Police personnel, secure material witnesses, record their statements before a Magistrate, seize the suspects’ phones, or subject Sanoj’s recovered phone to forensic examination.

The Court found it significant that the suspects were members of the Excise Police team, that two Assistant Sub-Inspectors retained Sanoj’s mobile phone for several days without disclosure, and that the explanation that Sanoj escaped from the closed rear compartment of a Bolero vehicle emerged belatedly and through inconsistent statements.

These circumstances, coupled with the prolonged inaction and the apparent connection of the suspected officials with the local police establishment, created a reasonable and tangible basis for concluding that the State investigation lacked credibility and was compromised by bias.

Although the Court acknowledged that CBI transfer should not be ordered routinely, it considered the present matter a rare and exceptional case requiring an independent investigation to preserve public confidence and uncover the whereabouts of Sanoj Kumar.

The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, was directed to hand over all case documents and materials to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Patna, within one week.

The CBI was directed to assume charge immediately, investigate the alleged disappearance and custodial assault with utmost urgency, constitute a team of reputed officers, and submit a report within a reasonable time.

The CBI was also authorised to interrogate the police officials involved in the earlier investigation.

The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not be treated as findings on the merits of the criminal case.

The matter was listed for 11 September 2026, with a direction to the CBI to file an action-taken report before that date.