Ranbir Singh Saehney v. State of Uttarakhand and others

investigation in FIR No. 119 of 2024, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other specialised agency. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the State Investigating Agency has failed to conduct a fair, impartial, and timely investigation and that there is no likelihood of justice being secured unless the matter is transferred to an independent body having no local influence.

2. The factual matrix, as set out in the writ petition, is that the father of the Petitioner, Late Satinder Singh Sawhney, allegedly committed suicide on 24.05.2024, whereafter the Petitioner lodged the FIR on the same day. It is stated that a suicide note was recovered from the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 935 OF 2025, Ranbir Singh Saehney vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 1 Ashish Naithani J. clothes of the deceased, in which certain allegations were levelled against the accused persons.

3. As per the FIR, the deceased was under constant pressure, intimidation, and financial threat, which allegedly drove him to take the extreme step. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Penal Code, and thereafter, during the course of investigation, Sections 385, 420 and 120B were added on the basis of certain documents and statements collected by the Investigating Officer.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that both accused persons were arrested during the initial period of investigation and were granted police custody remand by the jurisdictional Magistrate for the purpose of further investigation of the additional sections. Their bail applications before the Magistrate as well as before the Sessions Court were rejected.

6. However, at a subsequent stage, both accused were granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.07.2024, subject to conditions. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the said bail order contained some observations regarding the need for a proper assessment of material during trial, but after being enlarged on bail, the accused persons have allegedly attempted to influence and derail the investigation.

7. It is further submitted that on 22.10.2024, in connected proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, the State made a statement before this Court that the charge sheet was likely to be filed within a few days. Again, on 09.05.2025, in proceedings arising out of the connected criminal writ petitions filed by the accused, the State informed the Court that the investigation was in its final stage. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 935 OF 2025, Ranbir Singh Saehney vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 2 Ashish Naithani J. Despite these assurances, the Petitioner asserts that even after several months, no Charge sheet has been submitted before the competent court. This, according to the Petitioner, shows deliberate inaction, unexplained delay, and a lack of seriousness in pursuing the investigation.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner goes further to allege that the concerned Investigating Officer had personally informed him that the accused persons had approached senior officials and had submitted written instructions suggesting the manner in which the investigation should be conducted. It is argued that such conduct amounts to interference with the investigation and reflects the influence wielded by the accused.

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the accused persons have, over a period of time, been involved in financial dealings of doubtful integrity and that their influence has created circumstances in which the Investigating Agency is unable to discharge its functions in a fair and independent manner.

10. It is further argued that the family of the deceased has suffered immense trauma and that the failure of the Investigating Agency to submit the charge sheet despite assurances to this Court has severely eroded their confidence in the ongoing investigation.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the allegations of bias and undue influence are wholly unsubstantiated and that no material has been placed before the Court to indicate that the Investigating Agency has failed in its duty. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 935 OF 2025, Ranbir Singh Saehney vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 3 Ashish Naithani J.

12. According to the learned counsel for the State, the investigation has been progressing steadily and has now reached a stage where the final steps are being undertaken. It is submitted that the delay that has occurred is attributable to the nature of the evidence collected, the multiplicity of witnesses, and the necessity of obtaining forensic and digital evidence, which often requires time.

13. It is further submitted that senior supervisory officers have been periodically monitoring the progress of the investigation and that any assumptions to the contrary are misplaced.

14. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 submits that the Petitioner has attempted to project ordinary investigative delay as evidence of bias, whereas there is no material to indicate that the Investigating Agency has acted in any manner contrary to law. It is submitted that the allegations regarding the accused submitting written instructions to the higher authorities are baseless and that such assertions have been made only to prejudice the Court and create an impression of influence where none exists. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner has adequate remedies under law upon submission of the final report and that the extraordinary relief of transfer is unwarranted.

15. At this juncture, this court observes that the question that arises for consideration is whether the material placed on record is sufficient to justify the transfer of the investigation from the State Police to an independent agency.

16. Transfer of investigation to another agency is an extraordinary step that is undertaken only when compelling circumstances are Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 935 OF 2025, Ranbir Singh Saehney vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 4 Ashish Naithani J. shown. In the present case, although the Learned counsel for the Petitioner has expressed concerns regarding delay and alleged influence, the Court cannot overlook that the investigation is still ongoing. The record does not disclose that the Investigating Agency has acted in a manner that is manifestly unfair, partisan, or motivated by extraneous considerations. The statements made by the State before this Court regarding the progress of the investigation indicate that the matter is in its final stages. The mere fact that some more time has been taken cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of bias.

17. The allegation that the accused persons have interfered with the investigation by submitting written instructions to senior officials is not supported by any material. Such assertions, without independent corroboration, cannot the basis transferring investigation. The Court must exercise caution before acting on unverified allegations, particularly when the Investigating Agency denies any such interference.

18. It is also to be kept in mind that the criminal justice system provides adequate safeguards to the victim and the complainant at all stages. Once the investigation is completed and the final report is submitted, the jurisdictional court has full authority to examine whether the investigation has been conducted properly. The complainant or the victim is entitled to raise objections to the final report and to seek further investigation. These statutory remedies are meaningful and ensure that any inadequacy in the investigation can be addressed by the competent court.

19. The Court must also remain mindful of the statutory autonomy vested in the Investigating Agency. A transfer of investigation cannot Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 935 OF 2025, Ranbir Singh Saehney vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 5 Ashish Naithani J. be directed merely on account of the complainant’s dissatisfaction or on the basis of general apprehensions. There must be clear and specific circumstances demonstrating that the investigation is being conducted contrary to law or that the Investigating Agency is functioning under external influence. No such circumstances have been established in the present case.

20. Although the Court does not find sufficient material to justify the transfer of the investigation, the concerns of the Petitioner regarding delay are not unfounded. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the prolonged period that has elapsed since the registration of the FIR, it is appropriate to direct the Investigating Agency to conclude the investigation with due expedition. ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. While declining the request for transfer of investigation, it is directed that the Investigating Agency shall ensure that the investigation is taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest and in strict accordance with law. The senior officer supervising the concerned police station shall periodically review the progress so that no avoidable delay occurs. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail all remedies available in law before the competent court upon submission of the final report. Dated:28.11.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 935 OF 2025, Ranbir Singh Saehney vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 6 Ashish Naithani J.