The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered CBI to conduct further investigation into an NDPS case after finding that the prosecution’s version regarding the accused’s detention and subsequent arrest appeared “somewhat doubtful”. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi also quashed the trial court’s November 13, 2024, order framing charges.
The orders came as Justice Bedi allowed a petition filed by Kusum Rani and another petitioner. They were seeking directions for a probe by CBI or any other investigating agency into an FIR registered on August 12, 2024, under the provisions of the NDPS Act at the Adampur police station in Hisar.
Justice Bedi further directed CBI to make an endeavour to conclude the investigation within three months.
The controversy has its genesis in the arrest of Kusum Rani’s husband Lovkesh Kumar. The bench, during the course of hearing, was told that 900 tablets of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate were seized from the accused after the police acting on secret information on the intervening night of August 11-12, 2024.
Kumar’s wife, on the other hand, maintained through counsel Aditya Sanghi, Manik Midha and Karan Duggal that he had actually been picked up by police officials from their residence at 5.38 am on August 11, 2024. However, his arrest was shown post mid-night on August 12, 2024. In representations made to senior police officers, she relied on CCTV footage, mobile tower data and other material to allege that her husband had been illegally detained and later falsely implicated in the narcotics case.
During the inquiry ordered on Kusum Rani’s representations, police officials stated that Lovkesh Kumar was taken for interrogation on the morning of August 11, 2024, but claimed he was released at about 11 am and handed over to one Ramesh Kumar. But he categorically denied ever taking Lovkesh Kumar’s custody
Before examining the facts of the case, Justice Bedi reiterated the settled legal position that constitutional courts possessed the power to direct a CBI investigation even after a charge-sheet had been filed. Referring to a series of Supreme Court judgments, the bench observed that such power was to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where it became necessary to ensure a fair, impartial and credible investigation.
Applying the principles to the present case, the court found the prosecution’s explanation difficult to accept. “It is the admitted position that Lovkesh Kumar was taken away for interrogation in the early hours on August 11, 2024. However, his arrest has been shown only post mid-night on August 12,
2024,” Justice Bedi observed.
“The explanation given by the investigating agency that Lovkesh Kumar had been released at 11 am on August 11, 2024, to one Ramesh Kumar and thereafter, arrested at night, has itself been found to be in violation of settled procedure by various police officers, including SIT, constituted post the order of this court dated March 13 this year,” Justice Bedi observed.
The bench added to the SIT’s conclusion that the investigation, nevertheless fair, could not be accepted “at its face value” in view of Ramesh Kumar’s categorical statement denying that custody had ever been handed over to him. “Therefore, the prosecution version appears to be somewhat doubtful,” the court held.
Referring to the need for an independent investigation in cases involving serious allegations of false implication, Justice Bedi observed: “In fact, where any person appears to have been falsely nominated as an accused by the police in a case where the minimum sentence is 10 years rigorous imprisonment then, for a fair and impartial investigation to take place it is imperative that the investigation should be handed over to an independent agency for the unvarnished truth to surface.”
Finding “considerable merit” in the petition, the high court ordered: “The order framing charges dated November 13, 2024, is quashed. Further investigation of the present case is handed over to the respondent – CBI,” Justice Bedi added.
