Introduction:

The Patna High Court has transferred the investigation into the disappearance of a man allegedly taken into custody and brutally assaulted by Excise Police officials to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), finding the circumstances of the case to be “rare and exceptional” and holding that the credibility of the State investigating agency had come under serious question.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha passed the order in Gauri Shankar Ram v. State of Bihar and Others, concerning the disappearance of Sanoj Kumar from Bhojpur district. The Court found that the investigation conducted by the State authorities had not proceeded with the urgency expected in a case involving allegations of police custody, physical assault and unexplained disappearance.

The petition was filed by Gauri Shankar Ram, father of Sanoj Kumar, who had allegedly gone missing on August 13, 2025. Sanoj was stated to be working as a centring mistri at construction sites. According to his father, Sanoj contacted his younger brother on the evening of August 13 and informed him that police officials had apprehended him near Kali Mandir at Dharahara Musahar Toli on an allegation relating to consumption of liquor.

The circumstances surrounding the telephone calls became an important part of the petitioner’s case. Sanoj allegedly called his family again and informed them that the police personnel were beating him. The call was subsequently disconnected, and his mobile phone was later found switched off. Despite efforts by his family to locate him by approaching the Bihiya and Jagdishpur police stations, his whereabouts could not be ascertained.

The following day, Sanoj’s motorcycle was found abandoned near Dharahara Musahar Toli. His father thereafter lodged a complaint, resulting in registration of Bihiya Police Station Case No. 296 of 2025. The allegations were serious because they did not merely concern an unexplained disappearance. They suggested that Sanoj had been taken away by police officials and had disappeared thereafter.

The petitioner relied upon accounts of local witnesses who allegedly claimed to have seen Sanoj being assaulted by police personnel. It was alleged that the assault was so severe that Sanoj became incapable of walking. The petition further alleged that he was denied water and was dragged with a gamcha tied around his neck before being taken away in a police vehicle.

Another important piece of material relied upon by the petitioner was CCTV footage allegedly obtained from a nearby private premises. According to the petition, the footage captured the arrival of two police vehicles at the location and showed police personnel detaining and assaulting several persons, including Sanoj.

These allegations assumed greater significance because the persons allegedly involved in the detention were members of the Excise Police. The case therefore raised concerns not only regarding the fate of the missing person but also regarding the independence and credibility of an investigation being conducted by the State machinery where police personnel themselves were among those allegedly implicated.

When the writ petition initially came before the High Court in May 2026, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, to personally supervise the investigation. The Court subsequently expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the matter, particularly after a counter-affidavit was not filed for more than a month.

As the proceedings continued, further material emerged during the investigation. It was revealed that Sanoj had allegedly been taken into custody along with two other persons. Excise Police officials were arrested and questioned, but their versions concerning the incident were reportedly inconsistent.

The investigation also brought to light an alleged scuffle between Sanoj and the private driver of an Excise Police vehicle. During interrogation, it allegedly emerged that the driver had placed a towel around Sanoj’s neck and pulled him. These developments added another dimension to the allegations concerning the manner in which Sanoj had been treated while in the custody or control of persons associated with the Excise Police.

The High Court was therefore confronted with a case in which a person was allegedly last seen after being detained by officials, allegations of serious assault had been made, witnesses had allegedly seen the incident, CCTV footage was said to exist, and yet the State investigation had not progressed with the urgency expected in such circumstances.

The Court acknowledged that transfer of an investigation from the State police to the CBI is not an ordinary course of action. Ordinarily, investigation of criminal offences falls within the domain of the State police, and constitutional courts do not routinely substitute a central investigating agency for the State investigating machinery. Such a transfer is generally reserved for circumstances in which the Court finds compelling reasons to believe that an independent investigation is necessary to preserve the integrity of the process.

In the present case, however, the Bench found that the circumstances crossed that threshold. It held that the petitioner’s apprehension that the investigation had been compromised because Excise Police officials were themselves involved was not merely speculative. According to the Court, there were tangible circumstances supporting the concern.

The Court consequently transferred Bihiya P.S. Case No. 296 of 2025 to the CBI with immediate effect and directed the central agency to proceed with “utmost urgency”. The matter was listed for further consideration on September 11, 2026, by which date the CBI was directed to submit an action taken report.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Gauri Shankar Ram, sought an independent investigation into the disappearance of his son. The central submission was that Sanoj had allegedly been apprehended by Excise Police officials and had informed his family during a telephone call that he was being beaten. Immediately thereafter, communication with him ceased and he disappeared.

The petitioner argued that the circumstances could not be treated as an ordinary missing-person case. According to the petitioner’s case, the last known whereabouts of Sanoj were connected to his alleged detention by police personnel. His motorcycle was subsequently found abandoned, while his mobile phone became switched off. These circumstances, taken together, raised serious concerns about what had happened to him after he was allegedly taken away.

The petitioner further relied upon local witnesses who allegedly saw police officials assaulting Sanoj. It was asserted that the assault was severe enough to leave him unable to walk. The allegation that he was dragged with a gamcha tied around his neck and taken away in a police vehicle was presented as further evidence that his disappearance was directly connected with the conduct of the police officials.

The existence of CCTV footage was also relied upon to demonstrate that the allegations were capable of independent verification. According to the petitioner, the footage showed police vehicles arriving at the location and police personnel detaining and assaulting persons present there, including Sanoj.

The petitioner therefore contended that an investigation conducted by the same State machinery to which the allegedly involved Excise Police officials belonged could not inspire confidence. The argument was not simply that the State police had failed to immediately solve the case, but that the alleged involvement of law-enforcement personnel created an inherent risk of institutional bias.

The petitioner also pointed to the progress of the investigation after registration of the FIR. Despite the gravity of the allegations, statements of local witnesses were allegedly not recorded within a reasonable period. The petitioner submitted that the investigation had not proceeded with the urgency required in a case where a person had allegedly disappeared after being taken into police custody.

The petitioner’s apprehension was further strengthened, according to the case presented before the Court, by the fact that two of the accused persons were Assistant Sub-Inspectors posted at the same place. The petitioner contended that their position and familiarity with the local police machinery created a possibility that they could influence the course of the investigation.

The State respondents, on the other hand, were represented before the Court and the investigation had initially remained with the State police machinery. The State’s position, as reflected in the proceedings, was essentially that the investigation was being conducted and that the authorities had taken steps pursuant to the registration of the FIR and the directions issued by the High Court.

The State authorities had also been directed by the High Court to ensure supervision of the investigation. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, was specifically directed to personally supervise the matter when the petition first came before the Court. The respondents could therefore point to the supervisory measures undertaken by the State authorities as an indication that the investigation was not being completely ignored.

The respondents also faced allegations concerning the involvement of Excise Police officials and the circumstances surrounding Sanoj’s detention. The investigation had proceeded to the stage of arresting and questioning officials connected with the incident. During interrogation, the authorities had also discovered information regarding an alleged scuffle between Sanoj and the private driver of an Excise Police vehicle.

The emergence of these facts demonstrated that the State investigation was at least uncovering material concerning the circumstances of Sanoj’s disappearance. The respondents could consequently contend that the investigation should ordinarily be allowed to continue within the State police framework rather than being transferred to a central agency merely because the allegations involved police officials.

The High Court, however, was required to consider these matters against the continuing absence of Sanoj and the seriousness of the allegations. The Court was not deciding the guilt or innocence of the persons accused of assault. Its immediate concern was whether the investigation was sufficiently independent, credible and effective to inspire public confidence.

The respondents’ position also had to be considered in light of the established principle that transfer of investigation to the CBI should not become routine. The State police ordinarily possesses the statutory authority and institutional responsibility to investigate offences occurring within the State. A constitutional court therefore exercises its power to direct a CBI investigation sparingly and only when circumstances justify such extraordinary intervention.

The petitioner, however, argued that this was precisely such an exceptional case. The allegations involved State officials, the missing person was allegedly last seen in their custody or control, and there were substantial concerns regarding delays in recording witness statements and the overall progress of the investigation.

The dispute before the Court thus involved a balance between two competing considerations. On one side was the general principle that investigation should ordinarily remain with the State police and that courts should avoid unnecessary interference with an ongoing criminal investigation. On the other was the constitutional obligation to ensure that an investigation into serious allegations against State officials is fair, impartial and capable of commanding public confidence.

The Bench ultimately concluded that the circumstances in the present case provided sufficient objective grounds to move beyond the ordinary rule and entrust the investigation to an independent central agency.

Court’s Judgment:

The Patna High Court allowed the petition to the extent necessary to transfer the investigation in Bihiya P.S. Case No. 296 of 2025 to the CBI with immediate effect. The Bench found the case to present “rare and exceptional” circumstances warranting such intervention.

The Court’s decision was principally based on its assessment of the manner in which the State investigation had progressed. The Bench observed that there was “no iota of doubt” that the State investigating agency had failed to act with the urgency required after registration of the FIR.

The Court’s concern was particularly serious because of the nature of the allegations. The case involved a man who had allegedly been taken into custody by Excise Police officials and who subsequently disappeared. Allegations had been made that he was subjected to brutal physical assault and was in such a condition that he could not walk before being taken away.

In such circumstances, the Court considered prompt investigation to be indispensable. Early recording of witness statements, preservation and examination of CCTV footage, identification of the persons involved and reconstruction of the events surrounding the alleged detention were matters that required immediate attention.

The Bench was particularly critical of the delay in recording statements of local witnesses. Where independent witnesses are available in a case involving alleged police misconduct, delay can have serious consequences for the integrity of the investigation. Witnesses may become unavailable, recollections may fade and evidence may be lost or influenced.

The Court therefore treated the lack of urgency as more than an ordinary investigative shortcoming. It became significant because the alleged perpetrators were themselves members of a law-enforcement agency.

The Court expressly observed that the petitioner’s apprehension that the investigation had been compromised because Excise Police officials were involved was based on reasons and was not merely a matter of conjecture. The Bench noted that “inaction writs large” and observed that the very credibility of the State investigating agency was at stake.

The presence of Assistant Sub-Inspectors among the accused was also significant. The Court noted that two accused persons were posted at the same place and could potentially influence the investigation. This institutional proximity heightened the Court’s concern about whether the State machinery could conduct the investigation with complete independence.

The Court’s reasoning reflects an important constitutional principle concerning fair investigation. Investigation is ordinarily the function of the police, but that power must be exercised fairly, impartially and in accordance with law. Where circumstances create substantial and demonstrable doubt about the independence of the investigation, constitutional courts possess the power to intervene to protect the integrity of the criminal justice process.

The Bench nevertheless acknowledged that investigations should not ordinarily be transferred from the State police to the CBI. Such transfers have significant consequences and should not become a substitute for ordinary investigative supervision. The CBI is a specialised central agency, and its intervention in a State case is ordinarily reserved for situations where the circumstances demonstrate a genuine need for an independent investigation.

The Court found that the present case satisfied that exceptional threshold. It specifically stated that the lack of confidence in the State investigation was supported by “obvious, tangible reasons”. The Court therefore accepted the petitioner’s contention that an independent investigation was necessary.

The circumstances considered by the Court included the alleged detention of Sanoj by Excise Police officials, the allegations of brutal assault, the subsequent disappearance, the alleged eyewitness accounts, the existence of CCTV footage, the delayed progress of the investigation and the involvement of police officials who were in a position to influence the State machinery.

The Court’s intervention was not based upon a finding that the accused Excise Police officials were guilty. The transfer of investigation does not amount to a determination of criminal liability. The question of guilt remains to be determined on the basis of evidence collected during a lawful investigation and, if appropriate, proved during trial.

Instead, the Court’s focus was on ensuring that the investigation itself was credible. Where a person disappears after allegedly being detained by law-enforcement officials, the public interest demands an investigation that is beyond reasonable institutional suspicion.

The Court consequently directed the CBI to take over the investigation with “utmost urgency”. The direction was particularly significant because Sanoj had allegedly been missing since August 13, 2025 and there remained no information regarding his whereabouts.

The Director of the CBI was directed to constitute a team comprising reputed officers to investigate the case. This direction reflected the Court’s emphasis on both independence and competence in the conduct of the investigation.

The Court also granted the CBI liberty to interrogate police officials connected with the earlier investigation. This was an important part of the order because the Court wanted the new investigating agency to examine not only the original allegations but also the circumstances in which the State investigation had progressed—or failed to progress.

The CBI was therefore permitted to investigate why the case had remained pending without significant progress and to examine the role, if any, of officials involved in the earlier investigation. This ensured that the transfer did not merely replace one investigating agency with another but allowed the CBI to scrutinise the entire investigative process where necessary.

The order also reflects the Court’s concern with institutional accountability. When allegations are made against police officials, an investigation conducted by officers working within the same administrative structure can create a perception of conflict of interest. Even where actual interference is not conclusively established, circumstances capable of undermining public confidence may justify judicial intervention.

The Court’s reference to “rare and exceptional” circumstances is therefore significant. The judgment does not establish that every allegation against a police officer requires CBI investigation. Nor does it suggest that every delay in investigation automatically justifies transfer. Instead, the Court relied upon the cumulative circumstances of this particular case.

The allegations of custodial assault were accompanied by an unexplained disappearance. There were alleged eyewitnesses, purported CCTV evidence, a vehicle and motorcycle connected to the incident, and investigative material suggesting that Sanoj had been detained along with two other persons. The investigation had also uncovered allegations involving the driver of an Excise Police vehicle.

Against this factual background, the Court found that ordinary State investigation was no longer sufficient to command confidence.

The decision is also significant in the context of custodial rights and the constitutional protection of life and personal liberty. When an individual is allegedly taken into police custody, the State assumes a heightened responsibility for his safety and for accounting for his whereabouts. A disappearance following alleged detention therefore raises questions extending beyond an ordinary criminal investigation.

The Court’s intervention reinforces the principle that law-enforcement agencies are not aboe investigation merely because the allegations concern the