Transfer of investigation to independent agencies requires exceptional circumstances and objective proof of systemic bias.

On 21.09.2025, a dead body was recovered floating in the Asan River near Jarena Bridge within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bagchini, District Morena; the body was identified as that of Rakesh Sharma, the petitioner's uncle.

Police registered Marg Enquiry No. 34/2025 under Section 194 of the BNSS.

The petitioner alleged that the deceased was apprehended during a police raid at an alleged gambling spot, brutally assaulted by police personnel of PS Bagchini, and that upon his death the police threw the body into the river to fabricate a case of accidental drowning.

The petitioner submitted representations to the Superintendent of Police, Morena and the Inspector General, Chambal Range seeking transfer of the enquiry and certified copies of the post-mortem report, CCTV footage, duty registers and call detail records, but no action followed.

The State contended that the enquiry was proceeding fairly; statements of independent witnesses indicated that a rumour of police arrival caused persons at the gambling spot to flee towards the river, and that the deceased stumbled on stones, sustaining a forehead injury before running towards the river.

The post-mortem was conducted by a panel of doctors at J.A.H. Hospital, Gwalior, and minor injuries were explained as possibly sustained when relatives carried the body on a tractor during protests.

1. Whether the petitioner established, on the basis of credible and legally admissible material, that the investigation in Marg Enquiry No. 34/2025 was unfair, biased or actuated by mala fides.

2. Whether mere allegations against police personnel, in the absence of convincing prima facie material, are sufficient to justify transfer of investigation to an independent agency.

3. Whether the facts satisfy the settled parameters laid down by the Supreme Court governing transfer of investigation to the CBI or any other independent agency.

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

Constitution of India, Article 226 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Sections 194 and 196.

The power to transfer investigation to the CBI is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances, not routinely as held in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571.

Unfairness cannot be presumed merely from a litigant's dissatisfaction; objective material demonstrating deliberate manipulation is required as established in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254.

Transfer is warranted only in rare and exceptional cases upon cogent material showing mala fides, bias, or involvement of influential officials affecting investigative fairness (Zeba Khan v. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 144).

The Court held that the petitioner's case rested principally on his own representations, which remain mere allegations unless corroborated by independent material, and repetition of accusations before authorities does not elevate them to proved facts.

The State had produced statements of independent witnesses who consistently stated that no police personnel apprehended or assaulted the deceased; demonstrating that the enquiry was neither stagnant nor a sham.

The Court found no specific investigative lapse—no suppression of evidence, fabrication, or refusal to examine witnesses—that would render the enquiry legally unacceptable, and suspicion alone cannot ground extraordinary constitutional interference.

Disputed questions regarding the nature of the injuries, the cause of death, and the interpretation of the post-mortem report and photographs required appreciation of medical and scientific evidence, and could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings on affidavits.

The enquiry was still in progress, and premature judicial intervention would pre-empt the statutory process absent demonstrable illegality or mala fides.

The Court also invoked the presumption of regularity of official acts.

The Court declined to direct transfer of Marg Enquiry No. 34/2025 to the CBI, State CID or any independent agency, holding that no exceptional circumstance demonstrated that continuation of the enquiry would result in miscarriage of justice.

The investigating agency was directed to continue the enquiry objectively, independently and strictly in accordance with law, and to proceed under the BNSS if a cognizable offence is disclosed.

The Court expressly preserved the petitioner's liberty to pursue statutory remedies upon culmination of the enquiry and granted liberty to renew the prayer for transfer after receipt of the viscera report.