SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, March 11: In a significant development highlighting tensions between a central investigative agency and the state police, the Jharkhand High Court has ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into a criminal case registered against two officers of the Enforcement Directorate in Ranchi.
The court, while declining to quash the FIR lodged against the officers, concluded that the circumstances surrounding the case demanded an independent investigation by a central agency to ensure fairness and maintain public confidence in the justice system.
The order was delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, who observed that the matter has arisen in the backdrop of sensitive corruption and money-laundering investigations being conducted by the Enforcement Directorate in Jharkhand.
Allegations Originated From Peyjal Scam Accused
The case began when Santosh Kumar, an accused in an alleged large-scale misappropriation of government funds linked to the state’s drinking water department, filed a complaint against two ED officials posted in the Ranchi zonal office.
Kumar alleged that he was assaulted and injured inside the Enforcement Directorate office during questioning, following which the Jharkhand police registered a criminal case invoking several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to causing hurt, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation and destruction of evidence.
The ED officers, however, strongly disputed the allegations and approached the High Court seeking relief. They argued that the complaint was false and retaliatory, claiming the informant had injured himself by striking his head with a water jug during an interaction inside the ED office.
According to the petitioners, the individual was immediately taken to a government hospital, where medical records noted the injury as self-inflicted.
ED Claims Attempt to Derail Corruption Investigations
During the proceedings, the Enforcement Directorate argued that the Ranchi office is currently handling high-profile corruption and money-laundering investigations involving influential political figures and senior bureaucrats in the state.
The petitioners suggested that the FIR appeared to be a tactic intended to obstruct these investigations and intimidate officials of the central agency.
They also pointed to the criminal background of the complainant and the ongoing probe against him for alleged diversion of public funds.
Court Questions Police Conduct
While considering the matter, the High Court expressed concern over the manner in which the Jharkhand police handled the situation.
The court noted that police personnel reached the Enforcement Directorate office early in the morning and attempted to treat the premises of a central agency as a crime scene, raising questions about the urgency and circumstances of the action.
Justice Dwivedi observed that such conduct prima facie suggested unusual haste on the part of the police and indicated that the developments could not be viewed in isolation from the broader context of corruption investigations involving powerful individuals.
The court remarked that the sequence of events created a reasonable apprehension that the actions of the police might have been influenced by “high-ups” who themselves were under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.
Fair Investigation Essential, Says Court
Emphasising the importance of an impartial probe, the High Court stated that a fair investigation forms the backbone of the rule of law and must inspire confidence not only in the accused but also in the victim and the public at large.
The court observed that when two investigative agencies appear to be in conflict, and allegations are made against officers of a central enforcement body, the credibility of the investigation becomes a critical concern.
In such circumstances, the court said, entrusting the probe to an independent agency becomes necessary to remove doubts regarding bias or influence.
Why the Court Ordered a CBI Probe
The High Court explained that the case presented exceptional circumstances justifying the transfer of the investigation.
Among the factors considered were the serious allegations against officials of a central investigative agency, the background of ongoing corruption investigations involving senior political and bureaucratic figures, and the manner in which the state police acted after the FIR was registered.
The court observed that allowing the state police to continue investigating a matter involving officers of another investigative agency could undermine public confidence in the fairness of the process.
To ensure that the truth emerges without institutional bias or external pressure, the court held that a neutral and independent investigation by the CBI was the most appropriate course of action.
FIR Not Quashed
At the same time, the High Court declined the request of the ED officers to quash the FIR outright, stating that the allegations contained in the complaint required investigation and could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
The court noted that the case did not fall within the narrow legal categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed without investigation.
CBI Directed to Take Over Probe
In its final directions, the High Court ordered that the case registered at the Airport Police Station in Ranchi be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The Director of the CBI has been directed to register the case and conduct the investigation in accordance with law, while the Jharkhand police have been instructed to hand over all relevant records and materials to the central agency without delay.
A Rare Clash Between State Police and Central Agency
The case has drawn attention because it reflects an unusual confrontation between the state police and the Enforcement Directorate, two investigative bodies operating within different institutional frameworks.
By ordering a CBI investigation, the High Court sought to restore confidence in the investigative process and ensure that the dispute between the agencies does not compromise the search for truth.
The petition was accordingly partly allowed, with the FIR remaining in force, but the investigation now placed in the hands of the central agency.
