Investigative lapses may be addressed through further investigation under BNSS Section 193(9).

The applicant, informant in an FIR concerning the murder of his brother, alleged that the investigation was inadequate.

Among other matters, he cited the failure to examine certain witnesses, collect CCTV footage, conduct identification procedures and fingerprint or mobile-phone analysis, and examine call-detail and banking records. He sought further investigation and alternatively transfer of the investigation to the CBI

The State informed the Court that charges had not yet been framed and that an application for further investigation could be moved before the Trial Court.

Whether the alleged investigative lapses warranted transfer of the investigation to the CBI

Whether the applicant or Investigating Officer could seek further investigation under Section 193(9) of the BNSS before the Trial Court

Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserves the power to conduct further investigation after a police report has been forwarded to the Magistrate and to submit a further report on any additional evidence obtained.

Where further investigation is sought during trial, it requires the permission of the Court trying the case and is to be completed within ninety days, subject to extension by that Court.

The Court did not rely on any cited precedent.

The Court declined to assess the alleged lapses or determine whether the investigation was deficient, noting that Section 193(9) provides a route for seeking further investigation.

Given that charges had not been framed, it considered it appropriate for the applicant or Investigating Officer to apply to the Trial Court, which could examine the case diary and other material.

The Court did not decide the merits of the request for CBI transfer.

If an application is filed, the Trial Court must consider and decide it after examining the case diary and other material, within three weeks of receipt and before framing charge.

The Trial Court was directed to decide the application uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations. No order as to costs.