No De Novo Investigation Merely Because Investigating Officer Was Subordinate to Complainant; Accused Must Establish Actual Bias and Miscarriage of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Sunder Sham Arora v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 01 July 2026
Citation: CRM-M-45376 of 2023
Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that investigation conducted by a police officer who is subordinate to the complainant does not, by itself, create a presumption of bias or render the investigation unfair. A direction for de novo/re-investigation cannot be granted after cognizance has been taken merely on apprehensions regarding institutional hierarchy. Such relief can be granted only where the accused establishes actual bias, prejudice or miscarriage of justice. Defects or irregularities in investigation are matters for appreciation during trial and do not automatically invalidate the prosecution.
Summary: The petitioner, a former Punjab Minister, sought a direction for a fresh/de novo investigation in an FIR registered under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act after he was allegedly caught offering ₹50 lakh as part payment of a ₹1 crore bribe to a Vigilance Bureau officer. Although the original petition challenged the FIR, the charge-sheet and the order refusing discharge, the petitioner ultimately confined his prayer to seeking a fresh investigation through an independent agency.
The principal contention was that the investigation was inherently biased because it had been conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police who was subordinate to the complainant, an Assistant Inspector General of Police in the Vigilance Bureau. According to the petitioner, such a subordinate officer could not independently evaluate the allegations made by his superior and therefore the investigation lacked fairness and objectivity.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court observed that the petitioner had raised the plea of bias only after cognizance had been taken and the trial had substantially progressed. The Court held that the identity of both the complainant and the investigating officer was known to the petitioner from the very inception, yet no prayer for re-investigation had been made before the trial Court. The request was therefore held to be a belated afterthought.
On merits, the Court ruled that there is no legal principle that every investigation conducted by a subordinate officer is presumed to be biased. Such a presumption would undermine the professional duties and integrity expected of investigating officers. The Court emphasized that allegations of bias cannot rest on assumptions arising from official hierarchy but must be supported by tangible material demonstrating actual prejudice.
Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud, R.A.H. Siguran, C. Muniappan and the Constitution Bench judgment in Mukesh Singh, the Court reiterated that after cognizance has been taken, defects in investigation do not ordinarily justify re-investigation unless the accused establishes that the investigation has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Even defective investigation does not vitiate the trial, as the trial Court is duty-bound to independently evaluate the evidence produced by the prosecution. Since substantial material, including recovery of the alleged bribe amount, CCTV footage and witness statements, had been collected during investigation, no case for ordering a de novo investigation was made out.
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The High Court declined to order a fresh/de novo investigation, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish either actual bias on the part of the investigating officer or any miscarriage of justice arising from the investigation. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the petition and would not prejudice the pending criminal trial.