Constitutional Courts shall not interfere in ongoing investigations under judicial supervision absent evidence of mala fides.

The petitioner, a licensee of Government Composite Liquor Shops, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus for a fair investigation in Crime No. 261/2025

On 17.05.2025, a mob allegedly vandalized and set fire to the petitioner’s establishment following a local murder incident, causing a loss of approximately ₹20 Crores

While an FIR was registered and a charge sheet filed against six individuals on 12.10.2025, the petitioner alleged that the police failed to arrest 54 other identified suspects and omitted a charge for dacoity under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The State contended that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed on 01.08.2025, and further investigation is ongoing under judicial supervision as per Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 to direct the arrest of specific accused persons or transfer the investigation to an independent agency when a charge sheet has already been filed

2. Whether the court should direct the inclusion of specific penal provisions, such as Section 310(2) BNS, during the investigative stage

criminal investigation falls within the exclusive domain of investigating agencies, and constitutional courts rarely interfere unless there is evidence of mala fide exercise of power or a miscarriage of justice

statutory framework of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically Section 193(9) regarding further investigation under judicial oversight

Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair investigation and protection of life

trial courts possess the statutory power to add or modify charges at the stage of framing charges

The court reasoned that since an FIR was promptly registered, a charge sheet filed, and an SIT constituted, there was no evidence of "administrative apathy"

It observed that the mere presence of individuals in CCTV footage does not automatically establish culpability without corroborating evidence like identification parades; thus, the pace of arrests is an evidentiary matter for the agency

Regarding the non-inclusion of dacoity charges, the court held that legal characterization of offences is a matter for the Trial Court at the stage of framing charges, providing the petitioner an efficacious alternative remedy

the prayer for a CBI/CID transfer was rejected because the petitioner failed to provide cogent material proving bias, especially since the investigation is already under judicial scrutiny by the JMFC

the Court ordered the respondents to decide on the petitioner’s pending representation dated 09.02.2026 via a reasoned order within four weeks; directed the agency to conclude the investigation in a fair and time-bound manner; granted liberty to seek further investigation or addition of charges before the Trial Court; and directed the Superintendent of Police, Seoni, to consider any representation for protection objectively