Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlw / 2006U / 2026Gokal Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20577) on 30 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:20577]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1450/2026
Gokal Ram S/o Motaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sarali Police
Station Sadar District Barmer Rajasthan Through His Sister Dalu
Alias Deepika D/o Motaram Aged About 27 Year R/o Sarali
District Barmer Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Home Government Secretary Jaipur
2. The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur Metropolitan,
Jodhpur
3. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police (Dcp), Jodhpur West
Jodhpur Metropolitan
4. The Sho, Police Station Luni Jodhpur Metropolitan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Kumari Daloo (sister of the petitioner)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, AGA assisted
by Mr. SriRam Choudhary
Present-in-Person : Shri Sharat Katiraj, CP
Smt. Kamal Shekhawat, DCP(W)
Smt. Neeraj Sharma, ADCP (W)
Shri Suresh Chaudhary, SHO, PS Luni
Shri Goverdhan Ram, SI, SHO, PS
Luni
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
30/04/2026
GRIEVANCE
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India r/w Section 528 of the BNSS has been
preferred by the petitioner whereby he is aggrieved by the
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (2 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
allegations mentioned in the impugned FIR and subsequent
proceedings.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Briefly stated the facts as stated in the FIR are that on the
intervening night of 10-11 November 2025, the SHO of Police
Station Luni, along with his team, acting on prior information
received from the Anti-Narcotics Task Force, laid a naka at
Kharabera Purohitan and intercepted a Scorpio vehicle bearing
registration No. MH 03 DX 6297. The driver, identified as accused
Gokalaram, attempted to flee but was apprehended, while a co-
occupant escaped under cover of darkness. After complying with
the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, a search of the vehicle
was conducted, leading to recovery of 27 sealed sacks containing
contraband doda post with a total weight of approximately 5
quintals 43 kilograms, along with 35 live cartridges, one empty
magazine, and six pairs of fake number plates. During
interrogation, the accused disclosed the involvement of other
persons and admitted that the contraband was being transported
from Kapasan to Dechu for supply. Consequently, offences under
Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act, 3/25 of the Arms Act, and relevant
provisions of the BNS were found to be made out, and the accused
was arrested while the contraband and vehicle were seized in
accordance with law.
OBSERVATION
3. Having heard the sister of the petitioner, who is present
before this Court and upon perusal of the material available on
record and particularly the video shown in the Court, this Court is
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (3 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
constrained to observe that the present matter raises issues of a
very serious nature, touching upon the fairness and sanctity of
criminal investigation.
4. It is not in dispute that even the Commissioner of Police,
upon a prima facie examination, has noticed certain irregularities
in the manner in which the investigation has been conducted.
What is recited in the parcha kayami and the seizure memo
appears to be in stark contradiction to what is depicted in the
video placed before this Court. The video, if taken at its face
value, narrates an entirely different story. If such video evidence
is found to be authentic, it would prima facie indicate that the very
foundation of the prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR, may be
doubtful. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the alarming
possibility that an individual may have been falsely implicated in
an offence carrying severe punishment, allegedly at the instance
of a responsible police officer. Such a situation, if true, strikes at
the root of the rule of law and the credibility of the criminal justice
system.
Scope and Permissibility of Re-Investigation and Further
Investigation
5. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to advert to the
distinction between further investigation and re-investigation, as
expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v.
Irshad Ali reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that while further investigation is ordinarily permissible,
re-investigation is an extraordinary step to be directed sparingly,
in order to secure the ends of justice where the initial
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (4 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
investigation is found to be fundamentally flawed. For the ease of
reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgments are
reproduced herein below:-
“13. Having noticed the provisions and relevant part of the
scheme of the Code, now we must examine the powers of
the Court to direct investigation. Investigation can be
ordered in varied forms and at different stages. Right at the
initial stage of receiving the FIR or a complaint, the Court
can direct investigation in accordance with the provisions of
Section 156 in exercise of its powers under Section 156 of
the Code. Investigation can be of the following kinds:
(i) Initial Investigation.
(ii) Further Investigation.
(iii) Fresh or de novo or re-investigation.
14. The initial investigation is the one which the empowered
police officer shall conduct in furtherance to registration of
an FIR. Such investigation itself can lead to filing of a final
report under Section 173 of the Code and shall take within
its ambit the investigation which the empowered officer
shall conduct in furtherance of an order for investigation
passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in terms of
Section 156 of the Code.
15. ‘Further investigation’ is where the Investigating Officer
obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final
report has been filed before the Court in terms of Section
173. This power is vested with the Executive. It is the
continuation of a previous investigation and, therefore, is
understood and described as a ‘further investigation’. Scope
of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further
oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose is to bring the
true facts before the Court even if they are discovered at a
subsequent stage to the primary investigation. It is
commonly described as ‘supplementary report’.
‘Supplementary report’ would be the correct expression as
the subsequent investigation is meant and intended to
supplement the primary investigation conducted by the
empowered police officer. Another significant feature of
further investigation is that it does not have the effect of
wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation
conducted by the investigating agency. This is a kind of
continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is
discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (5 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
offence and chain of events relating to the same occurrence
incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood
in complete contradistinction to a ‘reinvestigation’, ‘fresh’ or
‘de novo’ investigation.
16. However, in the case of a ‘fresh investigation’,
‘reinvestigation’ or ‘de novo investigation’ there has to be a
definite order of the court. The order of the Court
unambiguously should state as to whether the previous
investigation, for reasons to be recorded, is incapable of
being acted upon. Neither the Investigating agency nor the
Magistrate has any power to order or conduct ‘fresh
investigation’. This is primarily for the reason that it would
be opposed to the scheme of the Code. It is essential that
even an order of ‘fresh’/’de novo’ investigation passed by
the higher judiciary should always be coupled with a specific
direction as to the fate of the investigation already
conducted. The cases where such direction can be issued
are few and far between. This is based upon a fundamental
principle of our criminal jurisprudence which is that it is the
right of a suspect or an accused to have a just and fair
investigation and trial. This principle flows from the
constitutional mandate contained in Articles 21 and 22 of
the Constitution of India. Where the investigation ex facie is
unfair, tainted, mala fide and smacks of foul play, the courts
would set aside such an investigation and direct fresh or de
novo investigation and, if necessary, even by another
independent investigating agency. As already noticed, this is
a power of wide plenitude and, therefore, has to be
exercised sparingly. The principle of rarest of rare cases
would squarely apply to such cases. Unless the unfairness of
the investigation is such that it pricks the judicial conscience
of the Court, the Court should be reluctant to interfere in
such matters to the extent of quashing an investigation and
directing a ‘fresh investigation’. In the case of Sidhartha
Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1, the Court
stated that it is not only the responsibility of the
investigating agency, but also that of the courts to ensure
that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper
the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law.
An equally enforceable canon of the criminal law is that high
responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to
conduct an investigation in a tainted or unfair manner. The
investigation should not prima facie be indicative of a biased
mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to
law as nobody stands above law de hors his position and
influence in the society. The maxim contra veritatem lex
nunquam aliquid permittit applies to exercise of powers by
the courts while granting approval or declining to accept the
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (6 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
report. In the case of Gudalure M.J. Cherian and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 397, this Court stated
the principle that in cases where charge-sheets have been
filed after completion of investigation and request is made
belatedly to reopen the investigation, such investigation
being entrusted to a specialized agency would normally be
declined by the court of competent jurisdiction but
nevertheless in a given situation to do justice between the
parties and to instil confidence in public mind, it may
become necessary to pass such orders. Further, in the case
of R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State of U.P. 1994 SCC Supp. (1)
142, where allegations were made against a police officer,
the Court ordered the investigation to be transferred to CBI
with an intent to maintain credibility of investigation, public
confidence and in the interest of justice. Ordinarily, the
courts would not exercise such jurisdiction but the
expression ‘ordinarily’ means normally and it is used where
there can be an exception. It means in the large majority of
cases but not invariably. ‘Ordinarily’ excludes extra-ordinary
or special circumstances. In other words, if special
circumstances exist, the court may exercise its jurisdiction
to direct ‘fresh investigation’ and even transfer cases to
courts of higher jurisdiction which may pass such directions.
17. Here, we will also have to examine the kind of reports
that can be filed by an investigating agency under the
scheme of the Code. Firstly, the FIR which the investigating
agency is required to file before the Magistrate right at the
threshold and within the time specified. Secondly, it may file
a report in furtherance to a direction issued under Section
156 of the Code. Thirdly, it can also file a ‘further report’, as
contemplated under Section 173(8). Finally, the
investigating agency is required to file a ‘final report’ on the
basis of which the Court shall proceed further to frame the
charge and put the accused to trial or discharge him as
envisaged by Section 227 of the Code.
18. Next question that comes up for consideration of this
Court is whether the empowered Magistrate has the
jurisdiction to direct ‘further investigation’ or ‘fresh
investigation’. As far as the latter is concerned, the law
declared by this Court consistently is that the learned
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct ‘fresh’ or ‘de novo’
investigation. However, once the report is filed, the
Magistrate has jurisdiction to accept the report or reject the
same right at the threshold. Even after accepting the report,
it has the jurisdiction to discharge the accused or frame the
charge and put him to trial. But there are no provisions in
the Code which empower the Magistrate to disturb the
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (7 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
status of an accused pending investigation or when report
is, filed to wipe out the report and its effects in law.
Reference in this regard can be made to K. Chandrasekhar
v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 223; Ramachandran v. R.
Udhayakumar (2008) 5 SCC 413, Nirmal Singh Kahlon v.
State of Punjab and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 441; Mithabhai
Pashabhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC
332; and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254.”
5.1 It is well-settled that “further investigation” and “re-
investigation” (also described as fresh or de novo investigation)
operate in distinct fields and are invoked in entirely different
factual matrices.
5.2 Further investigation is essentially a continuation of the
earlier investigation. It is undertaken to supplement the material
already collected and proceeds on the foundational premise that
the substratum of the prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR, is
broadly intact and not inherently suspect. The object of such
investigation is to fill in the gaps, collect additional evidence, and
bring on record such material which may have been left out
earlier, without disturbing the core structure of the case already
built. It neither obliterates the earlier investigation nor renders it
non est; rather, it adds to it so as to enable the Court to arrive at
a more informed and complete adjudication.
5.3 Re-investigation, on the other hand, stands on a completely
different footing. It is an extraordinary course, resorted to
sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where the Court,
upon a prima facie assessment, finds that the very substratum of
the case is under serious cloud. Such a course becomes
imperative when the investigation already conducted appears to
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (8 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
be tainted, unfair, biased, or actuated by extraneous
considerations, or is so perfunctory and designed in a manner that
it tends to mislead the Court and subvert the ends of justice. In
such situations, the Court cannot remain a silent spectator to a
compromised investigation and may, in order to uphold the
majesty of law and to secure the ends of justice, direct a fresh or
de novo investigation from the very inception. Thus, while further
investigation is supplementary in nature and preserves the earlier
exercise, re-investigation effaces the earlier tainted process and
seeks to rebuild the case on a clean and unblemished foundation,
ensuring that the truth is unearthed through a procedure that is
fair, transparent, and in strict adherence to law.
6. In the present matter, this Court is not confronted with a
mere deficiency in investigation warranting supplementation.
Rather, the issue goes to the root, namely, whether the incident as
narrated from the very first line of the FIR occurred in the manner
alleged at all. The time, place, and entire narrative of the
occurrence appear to be under a cloud of suspicion. Therefore,
this is not a case where further investigation would suffice. What
is required is a reinvestigation from the very inception, re-
examining the occurrence itself, the time and place of the alleged
incident, the apprehension of accused, the authenticity of the
seizure and recovery, and the veracity of the entire prosecution
story.
6.1 The Court is conscious of the fact that, particularly in cases
involving heinous offences, allegations may at times be disputed
or clouded by competing narratives. Such circumstances cannot
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (9 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
dilute the fundamental requirement that the procedure adopted by
the investigating agency remained strictly in consonance with law,
fair in its application, and transparent in its execution.
Applicability of Section 105 of BNSS
7. Coming to Section 105 of the BNSS, it marks a significant
procedural advancement, mandating that search and seizure
operations be conducted with the aid of audio-video electronic
recording, thereby introducing an element of objectivity into what
was traditionally a witness-dependent process. The provision
requires that such recording, along with the contemporaneous
search record or panchnama, be forwarded to the jurisdictional
Magistrate without undue delay, ensuring prompt judicial
oversight. For the ease of reference, Section 105 of BNSS is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“105. Recording of search and seizure through
audio-video electronic means.
The process of conducting search of a place or taking
possession of any property, article or thing under this
Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of
the list of all things seized in the course of such search
and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall
be recorded through any audio-video electronic means
preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall
without delay forward such recording to the District
Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial
Magistrate of the first class.”
7.1 The use of the term “shall” makes the requirement obligatory
in nature, reflecting a clear legislative intent to enhance
transparency, accountability and fairness in investigative actions.
In contrast to the earlier framework under the CrPC, which did not
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (10 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
mandate electronic recording and the process was relied
substantially on independent witnesses, Section 105 of BNSS
introduces technology as a safeguard against allegations of
arbitrariness, fabrication or procedural irregularity. The
introduction of this provision marks a significant shift in the
investigative framework by integrating scientific and electronic
techniques with the traditional methods of investigation. Such
incorporation of technology-driven procedures not only ensures
greater efficiency, transparency and objectivity in the process of
investigation, but simultaneously strengthens the guarantee of
fairness while fixing accountability upon the investigating officers.
The legislative intent behind the BNSS clearly reflects a movement
towards a more credible and evidence-oriented criminal justice
system, wherein reliance upon forensic science and electronic
means is accorded due prominence so as to minimize arbitrariness
and enhance the sanctity of investigation. It is a manifestation of
the evolving jurisprudential approach that investigation must not
remain confined to conventional methods alone, but ought to
advance in tune with modern scientific developments so as to
inspire confidence in the administration of criminal justice. The
provision thus aligns with the constitutional mandate of fair
procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
represents a shift towards a more reliable and verifiable system of
criminal investigation.
Application of the provision to Special Statute
8. Section 2(1)(l) of the BNSS defines the term “investigation”
in an inclusive manner so as to encompass all proceedings
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (11 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
undertaken by a police officer or by any person (other than a
Magistrate) who is authorised in this behalf. The Explanation
appended to Section 2(1)(l) of the BNSS further clarifies the
legislative intent by providing that in the event of any
inconsistency between the provisions of the BNSS and those
contained in any special enactment, the provisions of such special
enactment shall have an overriding effect to the extent of such
inconsistency.
8.1 Section 51 of the NDPS Act stipulates that the provisions of
the CrPC shall apply, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of the NDPS Act, to all warrants issued and arrests,
searches and seizures made under the said Act. In view of the
repeal and substitution of the CrPC by the BNSS, any reference to
the CrPC occurring in Section 51 of the NDPS Act is liable to be
construed as a reference to the BNSS, being the corresponding
and prevailing procedural law governing criminal proceedings.
That consequently, searches and seizures conducted under the
NDPS Act are now required to be carried out in conformity with
the procedural safeguards and mandates contained in Section 105
of the BNSS, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with the
provisions of the NDPS Act. That thus, a harmonious construction
of Section 2(1)(l) of the BNSS, its Explanation, and Section 51 of
the NDPS Act leads to the inescapable conclusion that while the
NDPS Act shall prevail in case of inconsistency, the procedure for
search and seizure, in the absence of any such inconsistency,
must strictly adhere to the framework envisaged under Section
105 of the BNSS.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (12 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
Body-Worn Cameras: Need of an Hour
9. In this backdrop, it is informed by the AAG that in some
cases, the police officers are wearing a body-worn cameras. This
Court is of the considered view that the use of body-worn cameras
during search and seizure operations ought to be adhered to with
utmost rigor, specially in heinous crimes. Such measures not only
lend credibility to the investigative process but also act as a
safeguard against allegations of arbitrariness, fabrication, or
procedural impropriety. It is trite that the authority of the State is
not monarchical or unfettered; rather, it is circumscribed by the
procedure established by law. The majesty of law lies not merely
in its existence, but in its faithful observance. Therefore, whatever
procedure the law mandates must be scrupulously followed in
letter and spirit, leaving no room for deviation. This Court would
insist that the investigating agencies adhere strictly to the
prescribed legal procedure, ensuring that every step undertaken is
fair, just, and transparent, so as to inspire confidence in the
administration of criminal justice.
9.1 While, unlike jurisdictions such as the United States of
America where the use of body-worn cameras has attained
considerable operational acceptance through policy-driven
mechanisms, the Indian framework has, as yet, not mandated
such devices across all facets of policing, the introduction of
Section 105 BNSS unmistakably reflects a legislative recognition of
technology as a safeguard against arbitrariness. In that view of
the matter, the principle underlying Section 105 BNSS can be
legitimately regarded as a foundational step towards a broader
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (13 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
regime of electronic oversight, of which body-worn cameras would
be a natural and progressive extension, in furtherance of the
constitutional guarantee of fairness, dignity and transparency
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Re-Investigation: A De Novo Exercise Commencing The
Investigation Afresh From Its Inception
8. In terms of Section 187(3) of the BNSS, the maximum
permissible period for completion of investigation while the
accused remains in custody is 60 days or 90 days, depending
upon the nature and gravity of the offence. Upon failure of the
investigating agency to file the police report within the stipulated
period, an indefeasible right to default bail accrues in favour of the
accused, which is enforceable upon filing of an application and
furnishing of bail. The said right accrues immediately upon expiry
of the prescribed period, i.e., on the 61st or 91st day, as the case
may be.
8.1 It is to be noted that the mandate of default bail as
engrafted under Section 187(3) of the BNSS obligates the
investigating agency to conclude the investigation within the
stipulated period while the accused remains in custody, failing
which an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused. The
said provision, though salutary in its intent to safeguard personal
liberty, at times imposes a stringent timeline which may not be
conducive to a fair, comprehensive and unhurried investigation,
particularly in cases of considerable complexity.
8.2 Likewise, Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act engrafts a special
procedure departing from the general criminal law by prescribing a
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (14 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
statutory period of 180 days for completion of investigation in
serious offences under the said Act while the accused remains in
custody; that the said provision further empowers the Court to
extend the period of investigation up to one year, but only upon a
report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of
investigation and disclosing specific and compelling reasons
necessitating continued detention; that such extension is not
automatic, but is conditional upon the judicial satisfaction of the
Court founded on due application of mind; and that, in the
absence of a valid extension so granted, an indefeasible right to
default bail accrues in favour of the accused upon expiry of 180
days, which right cannot be defeated by any subsequent filing of
the charge-sheet.
8.3 In the present case, the accused has already undergone
incarceration for a period of 165 days, and it appears that the
investigation, including any further probe, is unlikely to be
concluded within the period as provided in Section 187(3) of
BNSS.
8.3 It is further observed that the initial statutory period of 180
days, as contemplated under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS, ought,
in all fairness, to be made meaningfully available to the
investigating agency so as to enable it to undertake a focused and
unhindered investigation. However, the continuation of custody of
the accused during such period, particularly when substantial
incarceration has already ensued, may operate to the detriment of
both the liberty of the individual and the quality of investigation.
In such a situation, continued detention of the accused would not
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (15 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
only impinge upon the mandate of Section 36A(4) of NDPS but
may also result in a mechanical curtailment of liberty without
corresponding progress in investigation.
8.4 This Court is therefore of the considered view that, in order
to strike a balance between the imperatives of a fair investigation
and the fundamental right to personal liberty, it would be just and
proper to enlarge the accused on interim liberty, thereby ensuring
that the investigating agency is afforded a reasonable, unhindered
opportunity to carry out the investigation with due diligence, while
at the same time preventing undue and prolonged incarceration of
the accused.
OPINION
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the manner in
which the investigation has been conducted raises serious doubts
about its fairness and credibility. The apparent contradiction
between the official record and the visual material strikes at the
very root of the prosecution case and cannot be lightly ignored.
The present case does not merely warrant further investigation,
but calls for a re-investigation, inasmuch as the substratum of the
prosecution story itself appears to be under a cloud. In such
circumstances, to preserve the sanctity of the criminal justice
process and to uphold the mandate of fair investigation under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a de novo exercise becomes
imperative.
9.1 At the same time, this Court cannot remain unmindful of the
period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the
statutory scheme governing default bail. The continued detention,
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (16 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
in the backdrop of a doubtful investigation and the time likely to
be consumed in re-investigation, would not be justified.
Accordingly, in order to strike a balance between the need for a
fair and unhindered investigation and the fundamental right to
personal liberty, this Court deems it just and proper to direct re-
investigation of the case and to enlarge the accused on interim
bail.
VERDICT AND DIRECTIONS
10. The instant petition is disposed of in the following
directions:-
Directions regarding Re-investigation
(i) It is directed that a re-investigation of the present case be
conducted from the very inception i.e. from the first line of the
FIR, in accordance with what have been discussed in the
preceding paragraphs.
(ii) The Commissioner of Police shall ensure that such re-
investigation is entrusted to an independent officer not below the
rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, who shall not be
connected with the earlier investigation in any manner.
(iii) The re-investigating officer shall re-examine all relevant
aspects, including but not limited to:-
(a) the time, place, and occurrence of the alleged
incident and the mode, manner of apprehension;
(b) tower location and mobile data of the accused;
(c) the presence, role, and conduct of the police
officials involved;
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (17 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
(d) the authenticity and legality of the search and
seizure proceedings; and
(e) all other material evidence necessary to ascertain
the truth of the allegations.
(iv) Considering that re-investigation, in its true import, entails a
de novo exercise commencing from the inception of the
investigation, it is deemed just and appropriate to provide ease to
the agency to conduct investigation in full swing without having
constraint of 180 days. Since the accused is presently under
detention and the rigours of Section 187 BNSS r/w Section 36A(4)
of the NDPS Act mandate filing of the charge-sheet within the
prescribed statutory period of 180 days, this Court is of the view
that the process of re-investigation may not be concluded within
such limited time-frame. Consequently, in order to ensure that the
liberty of the accused is not unnecessarily curtailed merely on
account of the pendency of investigation, it is deemed appropriate
to enlarge the accused on interim release. Resultantly, the rigours
contemplated under Section 187 BNSS r/w Section 36A(4) shall
not operate to the prejudice of the accused during such period.
The said period shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of this
order and the investigating officers shall ensure that the entire
exercise is conducted with due diligence, expedition, and in strict
adherence to the procedure prescribed.
(v) It is further directed that no unwarranted delay shall be
occasioned, and the investigating agency shall make all earnest
endeavours to conclude the re-investigation within the aforesaid
stipulated period.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (18 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
(vi) The re-investigating officer shall prepare a comprehensive
analytical report, dealing with all aspects of the matter, and the
same shall be placed before the competent Court within the time
prescribed.
Directions regarding Search and Seizure
(vii) Search and seizure constitute a crucial armory in the
investigative process. However, to ensure transparency and to
insulate such actions from allegations of falsity, distortion, or
fabrication, statutory safeguards have been introduced under
Section 105 of the BNSS that states recording of search and
seizure through audio-video electronic means. The substratum and
very foundation of the prosecution case have come under a
serious cloud with regard to their genuineness. Therefore, in the
given circumstances, this Court is of the view that the rigours of
Section 37 would not come in the way of granting temporary
release to the accused.
(viii) This Court is informed that body-worn cameras have been
provided to certain police officers. In order to enhance credibility
and accountability. Having regard to the importance of
transparency in investigative procedures, and in light of the
safeguards contemplated under the BNSS, it is directed that in
cases involving serious offences or offences carrying severe
punishment, search and seizure operations shall mandatorily be
conducted using body-worn cameras, in addition to videography
as contemplated under Sections 105 and 185(2) of the BNSS
preferably by the mobile phone cameras.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20577] (19 of 19) [CRLW-1450/2026]
(ix) The Commissioner of Police shall ensure strict compliance with
the aforesaid directions and take necessary steps for effective
implementation.
Custody and Interim Release
(x) Accordingly, the accused shall be released for a period of 4
months, subject to the following conditions:-
(a) furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/-, and
(b) furnishing two sureties of ₹50,000/- each.
xi) The temporary release granted herein shall remain operative
for a period of four months. In the event the process of re-
investigation is not completed and the State agency requires
further time to arrive at a legitimate conclusion of the re-
investigation, both the parties shall be at liberty to move an
appropriate application before this Court for further orders.
(xii) It is clarified that the above directions have been issued in
view of the serious doubts arising with respect to the fairness of
the investigation, while simultaneously balancing the gravity of the
allegations.
10. Stay petition and all pending applications stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
31-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:53:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 02:27:07 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
