Court says extraordinary transfer of investigation is not routine, but directs preservation of DVR, CCTV and other electronic evidence amid claims of illegal detention, intimidation and coercion.
Chandigarh, Sept. 21: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined a plea seeking transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in a case involving allegations of illegal detention, custodial intimidation, extortion demands and removal of electronic evidence by police officials. Instead, the Court directed that the investigation in three FIRs be supervised by a senior IPS officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.
Justice Manisha Batra, while disposing of the petition filed by Daljit Kaur and another, held that transfer of investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly and only in rare and exceptional cases. The Court observed that mere allegations of bias or partiality against local police are not enough to justify such a step unless the material on record shows a prima facie tainted or biased investigation, involvement of senior officials, or circumstances that warrant an independent agency to preserve public confidence.
The petitioners had alleged that police officials repeatedly targeted them because of their estranged son, who was allegedly involved in criminal cases. They claimed that petitioner No. 2 was illegally detained from their residence during the night of March 29/30, 2026, and later shown as arrested from a bus stand. They also alleged that during another police action in May, officers forcibly entered their house, removed CCTV/DVR equipment, cash and jewellery, and pressured them for money.
The State denied the allegations, stating that the arrests were made in accordance with law and that the DVR was seized as case property and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court noted that the petitioners and their son were named in multiple criminal cases relating to extortion and firing incidents, but said it would not examine the merits of the evidence at this stage.
While refusing to hand over the probe to the CBI or an SIT, the Court emphasized that constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 apply even to persons facing criminal cases. It reiterated that arrest and detention safeguards — including communication of grounds of arrest, preparation of arrest memo, intimation to relatives and production before a magistrate — are mandatory and cannot be ignored merely because serious allegations exist.
The Court also observed that the dispute over the manner and timing of arrest could be resolved through objective records such as arrest memos, general diary entries, medical examination reports, CCTV footage and call detail/location data. It further held that the DVR seized from the petitioners’ residence was not only case property but also a potentially crucial contemporaneous record of what happened at the house, and therefore required proper preservation and examination.
To ensure fairness, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to have the investigation in FIR Nos. 67, 90 and 101 supervised by a senior IPS officer not directly connected with the case. The supervising officer has been tasked with monitoring the progress of the probe, ensuring it is fair and lawful, and safeguarding the DVR, CCTV footage, FSL report and other relevant electronic evidence.
The Court clarified that the supervising officer should not interfere with the independent assessment of evidence by the investigating officer or direct the outcome of the investigation. It also made clear that its observations would not affect the merits of the pending criminal cases.
Bottom Line :
Constitutional writ for protection of life and liberty - Allegations of illegal detention, coercion, demand of money and removal of DVR/CCTV equipment by police - Transfer of investigation to CBI or constitution of SIT not to be ordered routinely - Where material does not justify extraordinary transfer, Court can direct supervision of investigation by senior IPS officer and preservation/examination of electronic evidence to ensure fair investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Article 22, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Sections 36, 47, 48, 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 308, 308(4), 351(2), 351(3), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Arms Act, 1959, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Daljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2986704
