Uttarakhand High Court
Nishi Tyagi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 July, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.808 of 2026
Nishi Tyagi. ..................... Applicant.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ...............Respondent.
Present:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi, learned
counsel for the applicant.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. The present applicant – Nishi Tyagi W/o Late Vinay Tyagi,
praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 08.10.2025, bearing FIR
No.0357 of 2025, Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun,
wherein, three persons, namely, Vinay Tyagi, Rajan Singh and
Hari Om Tyagi, were implicated under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar
Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the
applicant Vinay Tyagi, was an accused in FIR dated 15.09.2025,
bearing FIR No.325 of 2025, lodged at Police Station Nehru
Colony, District Dehradun, which was lodged against unknown
person for the offence punishable under Section 305 (a) of BNS,
2023.
3. The investigation was commenced in this FIR, and one
person, namely, Rajan Singh was arrested on 22.11.2025, and
before that Vinay Tyagi, husband of the applicant, was also
arrested on 27.09.2025. From these two accused persons, namely,
Vinay Tyagi and Rajan Singh, some looted articles were also
recovered. The co-accused Rajan Singh, who was arrested on
22.11.2025, make a statement during investigation to the
2
Investigating Officer by disclosing the name of the present
applicant Nishi Tyagi, and on disclosure of her name, a search
warrant was issued on 02.12.2025 and the search was concluded
on 03.12.2025, in the house of Nishi Tyagi, and during search one
gold coin, 18 silver coins and Rs.18,000/- in cash and one
registered sale deed of wife of the informant Pramod Tyagi, was
recovered. At the time of search on the house of the applicant, the
husband of the applicant was already in a judicial custody in Case
Crime No.325 of 2025.
4. After taking into consideration the involvement of the
present applicant in Case Crime No.325 of 2025 and the outcome
of the search conducted on 03.12.2025, the process has been
commenced for implicating her under the Gangster Act because
the Investigating Officer gathered some information that the
present applicant is now acting as a gang leader and one of the
clues, before the Investigating Officer was that a sale deed of 18
bighas of land in Ghaziabad was executed on 24.09.2025 in the
name of M/s Sadhana Associates and during investigation it
came into the knowledge that the authorized signatory of M/s
Sadhana Associates is the present applicant – Nishi Tyagi.
5. Since the husband of the applicant Vinay Tyagi, was wanted
in other cases and one case was at Laksar, and therefore, he was
boarded in a police van in order to ensure his presence before the
Trial Court at Laksar, but in the midway on the bridge in
connivance with the Police Vinay Tyagi was murdered.
Thereafter, the present applicant filed a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India by impleading CBI as one of the
respondents with the following prayer:-
“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to provide police
protection to the petitioner and the immediate family
3members of Late Vinay Tyagi, who was killed in police
custody.;
(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to
transfer the investigation of FIR No. 1333 of 2025,
registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, on
24.12.2025 under Sections 109, 121(1), 132, 221 and 324(4)
of B.N.S. from present investigating agency to Central
Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation.”
6. In this petition on 10.01.2026, the Division Bench called
counter affidavit from the State as well as from the CBI. The order
passed on 10.01.2026, reads as under:-
“6. Counter affidavits be filed by State of Uttarakhand as well as
CBI in the matter.”
7. Subsequently, in the aforesaid petition, the State apprised to
the Court that in reference to one such incident, Vinay Tyagi, was
murdered, regarding which first information report was lodged
bearing FIR No.1333 of 2025, in which after thorough
investigation, the chargesheet was filed and the two persons who
were the main assailants, who killed Vinay Tyagi, were
chargesheeted and are languishing in jail, and the weapon used
in the crime was also recovered on their pointing out.
8. The assertion has been made by the State in WPCRL is
reflected from the order dated 12.02.2026, in paragraphs 5, 6, 7
and 8 which are extracted below:-
“5. Mr. J.S. Virk argued that seeking transfer of investigation
to the CBI is completely misconceived since the deceased have a
long criminal history and most of the cases relates to the
heinous crime, which is punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Mr. Virk also pointed out that the petitioner, who is the wife of
the deceased, is also an accused in three criminal cases.
6. Be that as it may, the question is whether it is a fit case for
transfer of investigation to the CBI.
7. Mr. Virk also pointed out that in respect of the said incident
the first information report was registered bearing FIR No.
1333 of 2025 in which after thorough investigation the
4chargesheet has been filed and the two persons, who were the
main assailants and have killed the deceased have been
chargesheeted and are in jail and the weapon used in the crime
were also recovered on their pointing out.
8. Since a very small issue is involved whether it is a fit case of
transfer of investigation to the CBI, put up this matter on
17.02.2026.”
9. Subsequently, the coordinate Bench on 09.06.2026 closed
the aforesaid writ petition, and the relevant extract of the order
are also reproduced hereinasunder:-
“6. Insofar as the first relief is concerned, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequent
to the institution of the present writ petition, the petitioner
has been remanded to judicial custody in connection with a
case registered under the provisions of the Gangsters Act. He,
therefore, submits that the said relief has become infructuous
and does not survive for adjudication.
7. With regard to the second relief seeking transfer of
investigation of FIR No. 1333 of 2025 to an independent
agency, learned Senior Counsel submits that although the
investigation has culminated in submission of a charge-sheet
and cognizance has also been taken by the competent court,
the mandatory requirement envisaged under Section 176(1-A)
Cr.P.C. was not complied with, inasmuch as, no proper
magisterial inquiry was conducted into the custodial death in
question.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that immediately
upon the occurrence of the incident, a magisterial inquiry was
directed and entrusted to the concerned Judicial Magistrate,
who, after conducting the inquiry in accordance with law,
submitted his report on 09.03.2026.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute
that the investigation has already been completed; charge-
sheet has been submitted before the competent court;
cognizance has been taken thereon; two accused persons have
been arrested; and the alleged weapon of offence has also been
recovered. He further submits that the criminal trial arising
out of the said charge-sheet is presently pending consideration
before the trial court.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds
that the principal ground pressed in support of the prayer for
transfer of investigation is the alleged non-compliance of
Section 176(1-A) Cr.P.C. However, the specific stand taken
by the State is that a magisterial inquiry was, in fact,
5conducted by the concerned Judicial Magistrate and a report
in that regard was submitted on 09.03.2026.
11. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the investigation
has already attained finality with the submission of charge-
sheet; cognizance has been taken by the competent court; and
the matter is now at the stage of trial. The petitioner shall
have adequate opportunity to raise all permissible objections
and contentions, including those relating to the fairness,
legality or propriety of the investigation, before the trial court
in accordance with law.
12. It is well settled that transfer of investigation to another
agency at a belated stage, after filing of the charge-sheet and
commencement of trial, can be directed only in rare and
exceptional circumstances where a clear case of miscarriage of
justice is made out. In the facts of the present case, this Court
does not find any such exceptional or extraordinary
circumstance warranting exercise of its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction for directing transfer of investigation to any other
agency. No material has been placed on record so as to
demonstrate that the investigation conducted is vitiated to
such an extent as would justify interference by this Court at
this stage.
13. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed. It is, however, observed that any observation made
herein shall not prejudice the rights of the parties before the
trial court, which shall proceed independently and in
accordance with law.”
10. Now in a reference to the FIR dated 15.09.2025 i.e. FIR
No.0325 of 2025, the present applicant is praying for bail on the
following grounds:-
11. In the earlier original gang chart, only three persons
were shown i.e. Vinay Tyagi (husband of the applicant), Rajan
Singh (co-accused) and Hari Om Tyagi (co-accused) of Case
Crime No.325 of 2025. In this gang chart, the name of the
applicant is not shown, which was approved on 08.10.2025 and
forwarded to the Court on 13.10.2025. By referring this gang
chart, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in
this original gang chart, name of the applicant is not mentioned,
therefore, implicating her in a supplementary gang chart, that too
during the pendency of the WPCRL No.117 of 2026, is a malafide
6
exercise of power by the Official concerned who prepared the
supplementary gang chart.
12. It is further argued that in the supplementary gang chart
which was approved on 13.01.2026, against present applicant,
only one case is shown which relates to Case Crime No.325 of
2025, though, in this particular Case Crime No.325 of 2026, the
other two co-accused persons, namely, Rajan Singh, granted bail
by the Trial Court and another co-accused Hari Om Tyagi, was
also granted bail by the High Court, therefore, the applicant
deserves for parity.
13. Another ground is that the entire exercise of the preparing
the supplementary gang chart is a malafide exercise of power in
order to frustrate the WPCRL No.117 of 2026, since on the day
when the supplementary gang chart was prepared, the WPCRL
No.117 of 2026 was pending. He submits that in WPCRL No.117
of 2026, CBI was made as a party/respondent no.6, since in the
main relief, the applicant was praying for transfer of the
investigation to the CBI, and on the first day of the hearing, the
Division Bench of this Court call the counter affidavit from the
CBI, and therefore the entire exercise for preparing the
supplementary gang chart was in order to frustrate the WPCRL
No.117 of 2026 though CBI already filed the counter affidavit in
WPCRL No.117 of 2026 on 16.02.2026.
14. Subsequently, the writ petition was closed since the
investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed and the
cognizance was taken, however, the petitioner, who is the present
applicant herein, was given liberty to raise all permissible
objections and contentions with regard to fairness of the
investigation before the Trial Court in accordance with law.
7
15. On the previous date, the State was directed to produce the
original record relating to the preparation of the supplementary
gang chart and the Xerox copy of the same has also been placed
before this Court and Mr. Sandhu, learned AAG argued that in
fact the issue was under consideration since last more than 3 to 4
months and this is by chance that the supplementary gang chart
was prepared on 13.01.2026, during the pendency of the WPCRL
No.117 of 2026.
16. Be that as it may, the question is whether the preparation of
the supplementary gang chart that too during the pendency of
the WPCRL No.117 of 2026, in which, on 12.01.2026, the Division
Bench call the counter affidavit from the State as well as from the
CBI, is by chance or a deliberate attempt to frustrate the WPCRL
No.117 of 2026. This question is now under scrutiny.
Investigating Officer is present in Court. He is given forty-eight
hours time to file his personal affidavit to explain whether such
an exercise as done while preparing the supplementary gang
chart is as per law or malafide exercise of power.
17. For the time being presence of the Officials are exempted.
18. Mr. Ramji Shrivastava and Mr. Aditya Singh, who were
permitted to assist this Court, pursuant to the previous order of
the coordinate Bench, on behalf of the victim without seeking any
permission, filed their affidavits. A specific query was put on Mr.
Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel, why he has not seek
permission for filing an affidavit, since the coordinate Bench only
permit them to assist on behalf of the victim. He submits that the
affidavit has been filed along with an application and without
those documents which are placed on record through the
affidavit he is not in a position to assist the Court.
8
19. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, those affidavits
are taken on record. By referring the affidavit filed on behalf of
the victim, Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel draws the
attention of this Court to a complaint filed by the company with
regard to the siphoning of the huge amount of Rs.270 Crore.
20. This aspect will also be considered because he has been
given permission to assist the Court but the question remains
whether the preparation of the supplementary gang chart is by
chance or strictly as per law or malafide attempt. This Court will
examine this aspect first.
21. Apart from this Mr. Vashistha, learned senior counsel also
submits that the present applicant is now widow, whose husband
was murdered on 27.12.2025, and being a lady, she also deserves
to get a privilege in terms of Section 480 of BNSS, 2023,
particularly, when she is languishing in jail since 10.02.2026.
22. List this matter on 28.07.2026.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
22.07.2026
NR
