CBI investigation is unwarranted under Article 226 absent patent illegality after charge-sheet filing.

Respondent No. 13, Rani Singh, was involved in a longstanding matrimonial dispute with Respondent No. 10, Ramkishore Singh.

The petitioners alleged that, owing to this dispute and Respondent No. 10’s connection with a medical shop, 2,925 Clonazepam/Rivotril tablets were planted in Respondent No. 13’s house to falsely implicate her under Sections 21(c) and 22 of the NDPS Act.

According to the petitioners, the polythene bag containing the medicines was initially found on the terrace by minor Petitioner No. 4 and was later placed near the stairs with household waste; the police subsequently recovered it during a search on 15 February 2026.

The petitioners sought, principally, transfer of the investigation in FIR No. 207/2026, Police Station Sarkanda, to the CBI.

The charge-sheet was filed on 25 March 2026 and the criminal case was pending before the competent Special Court.

During the pendency of the writ petition, Respondent No. 13’s separate bail application was allowed by a separate order.

1. Whether the circumstances alleged by the petitioners disclosed sufficient patent illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides to warrant transfer of the NDPS investigation to the CBI under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the disputed questions concerning the alleged planting of contraband, conscious possession, the presence and conduct of Respondents Nos. 10 and 11, and the arrest of Respondent No. 13 could be adjudicated in the writ proceedings rather than before the trial court.

3. Whether the Court should direct preservation of CCTV footage, production of call-detail/mobile-location records, departmental inquiry, or narco-analysis, brain-mapping and polygraph examinations in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in considering the request for transfer of investigation to the CBI.

The prosecution arose under Sections 21(c) and 22 of the NDPS Act concerning the alleged possession of prohibited substances in commercial quantity.

The Court applied the principle that transfer of an investigation to an independent agency such as the CBI is an extraordinary remedy, requiring material demonstrating patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides or a serious failure of the existing investigation; mere allegations or disputed factual assertions are insufficient.

Questions relating to the manner of recovery, conscious possession, knowledge, and the credibility of the prosecution and defence versions are matters of evidence for determination by the competent criminal court.

The Court also declined to compel investigative or forensic procedures under Article 226 in the circumstances of the case, while preserving the petitioners’ liberty to raise legally permissible contentions and produce material before the trial court.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the FIR followed the recording of secret information in the General Diary, preparation of relevant documents, communication to superior officers, and an alleged search resulting in recovery of the tablets.

The investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

The allegations of collusion were not left wholly unexamined: an inquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police included examination of concerned persons, verification from the Drug and Food Administration, and call-detail analysis, none of which supported the alleged conspiracy on the material placed before the Court.

The petitioners’ account regarding the bag’s discovery, the alleged conduct of the police, and the absence of conscious possession raised factual disputes requiring appreciation of evidence at trial, not determination in writ jurisdiction.

Since no material established patent illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides, the exceptional remedy of a CBI investigation was not justified.

For the same reason, the ancillary requests for CCTV preservation, call records, departmental inquiry and scientific examinations were not granted under Article 226, although the petitioners remained free to place relevant material before the trial court.

It refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI or order a fresh independent investigation, holding that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, the allegations had been subject to departmental inquiry, and no sufficient material of illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides had been shown.

The prayers concerning CCTV footage, call-detail/mobile-location records, departmental proceedings and narco-analysis, brain-mapping or polygraph examinations were also declined.

The petitioners were granted liberty to raise all legally permissible contentions and produce available material before the competent trial court.

The Court clarified that the separate grant of bail to Respondent No. 13 did not affect the merits of the prosecution and that the trial court must assess the evidence independently and remain uninfluenced by the observations in the writ order.