High Court’s Power Under Section 528 BNSS to Order Further Investigation or Transfer Probe to CBI Must Be Exercised Sparingly in Exceptional Cases of Biased or Deficient Investigation; Further Investigation Permissible Despite Commencement of Trial Where Investigative Deficiencies Raise Serious Concerns: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Rajender v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 14 August 2026

Citation: CRM-M-71051-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that although the case did not warrant transfer of the investigation to the CBI, the cumulative effect of the unresolved ballistic evidence, non-recovery of the actual firearm, failure to investigate its source and concealment, absence of an objective inquiry into the possible involvement of other persons and repeated judicial intervention demonstrated that the investigation had not proceeded in all necessary directions. The Court reiterated that constitutional courts may order further investigation, reinvestigation or de novo investigation even after the chargesheet has been filed, charges have been framed or the trial has commenced, where such intervention is necessary to secure a fair investigation and prevent failure of justice. Since both the FSL and CFSL reports indicated that the bullets and cartridge cases recovered from the crime scene were not fired from the licensed .32-bore pistol recovered from the principal accused, a deeper, independent and scientifically informed investigation was necessary.

Summary: The petition arose from FIR No. 407 dated 11 June 2023, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Hisar, under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, with Section 201 IPC subsequently added. The FIR was lodged on the statement of the petitioner, Rajender, following the killing of his daughter Suman and his two sons, Manjeet and Jitesh.

According to the petitioner, Suman had been married to Rakesh Kumar Sharma for approximately sixteen years. On 10 June 2023, she informed the petitioner that her husband, along with his relatives Vijay Sharma, Asha and Maya Devi, had been harassing and assaulting her and had threatened to kill her with a licensed firearm. The petitioner sent his sons Manjeet and Jitesh to Suman’s matrimonial home on the following day to counsel the family and resolve the dispute. It was alleged that Rakesh Kumar Sharma fired several shots at Suman, Manjeet and Jitesh, causing the death of all three at the spot.

During the investigation, the police obtained CCTV footage that purportedly showed Rakesh firing at the victims. He was arrested on 15 June 2023, and the police recovered his licensed .32-bore pistol, three magazines, thirty cartridges, arms licence and mobile phone. The investigating agency subsequently declared the other persons named in the FIR innocent and presented the chargesheet against Rakesh.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking reinvestigation by the CBI, CID or another independent agency. He alleged that the investigation was unfair and incomplete because the forensic reports disclosed that the bullets and cartridge cases recovered from the crime scene had not been fired from the licensed pistol seized from Rakesh. The actual weapon had neither been recovered nor satisfactorily traced. It was also contended that the other named accused had been prematurely exonerated without adequately investigating their possible role.

The State opposed the petition and maintained that the investigation had been conducted fairly. It submitted that the CCTV footage showed Rakesh committing the offence and that the CFSL report established that the crime cartridges and bullets had been fired from one firearm, although not from the licensed pistol recovered from him. On that basis, Sections 201 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act were added on the allegation that Rakesh had concealed the actual weapon. The State further argued that the investigation had been completed, a supplementary chargesheet had been filed, charges had been framed and the trial was underway.

The High Court observed that transfer of an investigation to the CBI cannot be ordered merely on a party’s apprehension or on the asking. Such a direction is reserved for exceptional situations involving a demonstrably unfair, mala fide or biased investigation or a failure of the State machinery to inspire confidence. The Court, therefore, declined to transfer the case to the CBI.

Nevertheless, the Court found substantial investigative deficiencies that could not be ignored. Both forensic laboratories had indicated that the licensed pistol recovered from Rakesh was not the weapon from which the crime bullets and cartridges had been fired. Merely adding offences relating to concealment of evidence and illegal possession of arms did not resolve the fundamental questions concerning the origin, procurement, handling, use and disappearance of the actual weapon.

After viewing the CCTV footage, the Court also noted the presence of other persons, including the mother of the principal accused, at the place of occurrence. The investigation did not disclose any objective analysis excluding the possibility of another person’s involvement in light of the scientific evidence. The Court clarified that the forensic reports did not conclusively establish that two persons had fired weapons, but they raised circumstances requiring a deeper investigation.

The Court also took note of the delay in sending the seized CCTV DVR for forensic examination. It was sent for expert analysis only after the trial court’s intervention. The trial court had earlier found the investigation deficient and directed further investigation by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even after that exercise, the supplementary chargesheet failed to resolve the central questions arising from the ballistic reports.

The High Court concluded that the unexplained firearm, the failure to trace it, the lack of a satisfactory inquiry into its concealment, the incomplete examination of the possible involvement of other persons and the necessity of repeated judicial intervention collectively demonstrated that the investigation had not travelled in all necessary directions. These circumstances warranted an independent further investigation, though not a transfer to the CBI.

Decision: The High Court disposed of the petition by declining the prayer to transfer the investigation to the CBI but directing the constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police who had no connection with the earlier investigation. The SIT was directed to examine the implications of the ballistic reports, trace the actual firearm used in the offence, investigate its source and concealment, determine whether the scientific and other evidence disclosed the involvement of any additional person, comprehensively analyse the electronic and forensic evidence and undertake all further steps warranted by law. The SIT was directed to complete the further investigation preferably within four months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order and submit its report before the competent court, with the clarification that the High Court had expressed no opinion on the culpability of any person.