The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment delivered on April 10, 2025, in CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 2611 of 2020: Usman Ali vs. State of U.P. and 12 others, laid down guiding principles on when criminal investigations can be transferred from the State police to central agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The petition, arising from the 2018 murder of Imtiyaz Ahmad—then Chairman of Town Area Chopan, Sonbhadra—sought a transfer of investigation from the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) to a central agency.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Usman Ali, the brother of the deceased, challenged the State Government’s order dated 26.06.2019 transferring the investigation of Case Crime No. 238 of 2018 (registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act) from the local police to CB-CID. He also sought directions to invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and to transfer the probe to the NIA under Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008.
It was alleged that extremists from the banned outfit Jharkhand Jan Mukti Parishad (JJMP) were involved, and one of the arrested accused, Kashmir Paswan alias Rauket, was found with a prohibited 9mm carbine and was described as an “Area Commander” of JJMP. The petitioner asserted that the investigation had been compromised due to political influence by the accused and their families, and therefore warranted a probe by an independent central agency.
Arguments by the Petitioner
Senior Advocate Rakesh Pande, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that:
- The investigation was shifted to CB-CID at the behest of accused persons with political connections.
- The filing of the charge sheet by CB-CID on 29.02.2020 exonerating named accused Rakesh Jaiswal and Ravi Jalan was arbitrary.
- Despite commencement of trial and deposition of several witnesses, further investigation or even transfer to CBI/NIA could be ordered by constitutional courts in appropriate cases.
In support, he relied on Rampal Gautam v. State (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 164) and Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana [(2016) 4 SCC 160], where the Supreme Court held that further investigation or fresh investigation can be ordered even after commencement of trial, if justice so demands.
The petitioner also emphasized that the nature of the offence, involving a banned extremist group and a public functionary (Chairman of a Town Area), invoked provisions under the UAPA and required central agency investigation.
Arguments by the State Respondents
Appearing for the State, AGA-I Paritosh Malviya argued that:
- The CB-CID had already completed investigation and filed charge sheets against eight persons.
- The trial had reached an advanced stage with examination of eight prosecution witnesses.
- The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had submitted reports indicating the murder stemmed from personal animosity and was not linked to terrorist or extremist activity.
- The petitioner had already availed the remedy of protest petition and Criminal Revision, which had been adjudicated upon.
- Transfer of investigation at this stage would disrupt trial and was not warranted in absence of exceptional circumstances.
Reliance was placed on K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police [AIR 2013 SC (Criminal) 2103] and Kabir Shankar Bose v. State of West Bengal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3592], which held that transfer to CBI/NIA should be ordered only in rare and exceptional cases.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar extensively referred to Supreme Court precedents to examine when a transfer of investigation may be justified. The Court emphasized that:
“The power to order fresh, de-novo or re-investigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation.” (Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana)
The Court clarified that while it has constitutional power to order such transfer, the same should be exercised sparingly, and only when:
- The existing investigation is demonstrably biased or a sham;
- There are allegations against high-ranking State officials;
- The case involves national ramifications or terrorism;
- Or where justice and public confidence necessitate independent inquiry.
However, it held that in the present matter, such a threshold was not met. The investigation had already proceeded to trial, protest petitions were considered, and statutory remedies were exercised. The Court noted:
“The complainant had the liberty to set out his/her entire case/grievances in examination-in-chief and make a prayer to the trial Court that the other accused… should also be proceeded against by summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C.”
The Court emphasized that in such circumstances, the appropriate remedy lies in approaching the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and not by seeking re-investigation.
Conclusion and Decision
The High Court declined to transfer the investigation to CBI or NIA. It observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the CB-CID investigation was vitiated by bias or malice, or that there was any miscarriage of justice warranting intervention.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that transfer of investigation to central agencies is an extraordinary remedy, not to be invoked routinely, especially after the commencement of trial.
Citation: Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:52346-DB | CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 2611 of 2020 | Usman Ali vs. State of U.P. and Others
