Case Background
This criminal writ petition was filed by the brother of a deceased young man, challenging the manner in which the police were investigating his brother’s death in Sasaram, District Rohtas, Bihar.
The incident took place on the night of 27.12.2024 at about 10:00 P.M. in the courtyard (hata) of one Kalika Singh, near “Pir Baba” in Sasaram. The petitioner’s younger brother, Rana Om Prakash @ Badal, and his friends had gathered there to celebrate the birthday of their friend Shivam Singh.
According to the petitioner, during this gathering, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Rohtas, Md. Adil Bilal, and his bodyguard, Constable Chandramauli Nagiya, along with 3–4 unknown persons, entered the premises. Firing took place and the petitioner’s brother died on the spot, while two others, Atul Singh (also referred to as Atul Kashyap) and Vinod/Vinod Pal, suffered injuries.
In the hours and early morning following the incident, three separate FIRs were registered:
- On 28.12.2024 at 00:15 A.M., Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1038 of 2024 was registered on the fardbeyan of Constable 717, Chandramauli Nagiya, the bodyguard of the Dy. S.P., against unknown persons under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- On 28.12.2024 at 05:15 A.M., Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1039 of 2024 was registered on the self-statement of the Inspector-cum-SHO, Rajiv Ranjan Rai, under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging recovery of illicit liquor from the premises.
- On 28.12.2024 at 07:30 A.M., Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1040 of 2024 was registered on the written application of the present petitioner under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 103(1), 351(2)(3)(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act, naming the Dy. S.P., his bodyguard and unknown persons.
Initially, the investigation of all three FIRs was with the Rohtas district police. On 04.01.2025, due to public outcry and allegations of police brutality, the investigation was transferred to the Crime Investigation Department (CID), Bihar.
The petitioner was dissatisfied with the conduct of the investigation and alleged that the police were trying to shield the Dy. S.P. and his bodyguard. He approached the Patna High Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.443 of 2025, seeking a court-monitored, fair and speedy investigation, arrest of the accused officers, and effectively, an independent probe. During the proceedings, CBI was impleaded as respondent no.9.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar, carefully examined the rival versions of the incident, the sequence and timing of the three FIRs, the materials collected in the investigation, and the applicable Supreme Court precedents on transfer of investigations to CBI.
The petitioner’s grievance was twofold. First, he alleged that the true events of the night of 27.12.2024 were suppressed by the police. Second, he claimed that the CID investigation was slow, biased and aimed at saving the accused officers.
According to the petitioner, he was forced to sign an application drafted by the police, and the contents of Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1040 of 2024 did not correctly reflect the real incident. He alleged that the Dy. S.P. (Traffic) and his bodyguard arrived at the hata in civil dress, without any warrant, accused the youths of consuming liquor, demanded money, threatened to implicate them in false cases, and when resisted, opened fire from their service revolvers.
In this firing, three persons — including the petitioner’s brother Om Prakash @ Badal — were hit. Om Prakash was declared dead at the hospital, and the others were injured. The petitioner alleged that immediately after the occurrence, the accused officers got two FIRs (Case Nos.1038 and 1039 of 2024) registered to build a defence story and justify the firing as an act of self-defence and law enforcement.
The first FIR (Case No.1038 of 2024), lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of constable Chandramauli Nagiya at Sadar Hospital, Sasaram, at 00:15 A.M. on 28.12.2024, described a very different version. In that statement, the constable claimed that he and the Dy. S.P. were on duty, saw two persons arguing with a truck and Toto driver near Kargahar More, and found them suspicious. When he tried to question them, they ran into a nearby compound. He stated that when he chased and entered the compound, 20–25 persons were present, and 5–6 of them assaulted him, tried to snatch his service pistol, and in the scuffle a shot went off. He further claimed that while he and the Dy. S.P. were trying to leave, the crowd pelted stones and bricks at the government vehicle, breaking the rear glass, and on the Dy. S.P.’s direction he fired one round in the air for self-defence.
The second FIR (Case No.1039 of 2024) by the SHO recorded the recovery of fired bullets, a fired cartridge, multiple fired bullets labeled as 9 mm, suspected liquor bottles, glasses with liquid traces, an air gun, and other items from the spot. The SHO invoked the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act on the allegation of illicit liquor being present at the premises. The seizure list detailed all the exhibits collected by a forensic expert.
The petitioner argued that both these police-initiated FIRs were designed to pre-empt and overshadow the victim’s version, and to paint the deceased and his friends as unlawful liquor consumers and aggressors.
The Court then examined the status report filed by the State regarding the progress of investigation by CID. It noted that:
- The District Magistrate deputed an Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest on the deceased on 28.12.2024, followed by a post-mortem by a three-doctor medical board.
- The post-mortem report recorded a firearm entry wound on the left upper chest and an exit wound near the right scapula, both communicating, and concluded that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury leading to cardio-respiratory arrest.
- The viscera report dated 02.05.2025 found presence of ethyl alcohol, indicating alcohol consumption by the deceased and others at the time of the incident.
- CID and FSL teams visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketches, reconstructed the crime scene, and reconstructed firing positions. The FSL reported that at least five rounds were fired — four within the compound and one in the adjacent lane — and all spent shells originated from the same 9 mm pistol.
- CID recorded statements of 23 witnesses, including seven eye-witnesses and two injured persons, and seized 10 vehicles from the scene. Call detail records confirmed the presence of the deceased at the place of occurrence.
- The status report highlighted that the injured Atul and Vinod did not initially report to the police station; they took treatment from private hospitals, and their injury reports were either simple or unclear on the nature of injuries.
- The report cast doubt on the claim that the gathering was for Shivam Singh’s birthday by pointing to his marksheet, which showed a date of birth of 15.05.2002. It also stated that the land (Kalika Singh ka hata) was Gair Majurwa Kharij Jamadar land under alleged illegal possession of Kalika Singh and others.
On overall assessment, the Court observed that certain facts were undisputed: there was firing; one person died; two were injured; and the firing was allegedly by a Dy. S.P. (Traffic). The Court pointedly noted that two FIRs were lodged by police personnel before the petitioner’s FIR, which “prima facie appears to be a preemptive attempt in order to take control of the narrative and distort the direction of investigation.”
The Court held that the police cannot “rush to file a skewed / one sided version and thereby preempt the version of the victim.” It found that, at least prima facie, the Bihar Police was trying to shield the Dy. S.P. and his bodyguard. It also found that the investigation appeared to focus more on collecting material against the deceased and his associates, rather than independently examining the allegations against the police officials.
The Court then referred extensively to a line of Supreme Court judgments — including Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Pooja Pal v. Union of India, and Hansurabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh — to summarise the law on when constitutional courts can direct transfer of investigation to CBI.
From these decisions, the Court distilled the following principles:
- When serious allegations are made against local police officials themselves, and the investigation by the same police force lacks public credibility, the High Court can direct CBI investigation under Article 226.
- Such power is extraordinary and must be used sparingly, but can be exercised even after filing of charge-sheet, if required to do complete justice.
- Fair investigation is an integral part of the right to fair trial under Article 21, and where the statutory agency appears ineffective, biased or compromised, courts must step in to ensure a credible and independent probe.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court concluded that this was one such exceptional case. The allegations were against a serving Dy. S.P. and his bodyguard; FIRs had been engineered by police officers; and the overall conduct of the State police showed a tendency to protect their colleagues rather than neutrally seeking the truth.
The Court therefore directed the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Patna, to register a Regular Case (RC) and conduct a “fair, transparent, comprehensive and expeditious investigation” into:
- Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1040 of 2024 (the petitioner’s FIR regarding the death of his brother), and
- the two connected FIRs — Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1038 of 2024 and Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1039 of 2024.
The Bihar Police was ordered to hand over all connected materials and evidence in their possession relating to these FIRs to the CBI. The Court allowed the criminal writ petition to this limited extent, clearly stating that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case itself.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for families who lose loved ones in encounters or police firing and then see the same police force controlling the investigation.
The Patna High Court recognised that when serious allegations of murder are levelled against serving police officers, and there are early indications of bias, the usual investigation by the State police may not inspire confidence. In such a situation, the Court has stepped in and ensured that an independent agency — the CBI — will look into the entire episode.
For residents of Bihar, especially in districts like Rohtas, this order signals that:
- The High Court is willing to intervene where there is credible apprehension that police are shielding their own officers.
- Multiple, conflicting FIRs generated by police officers to control the narrative will be closely scrutinised.
- Fair investigation is treated as part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
The judgment does not decide whether the Dy. S.P. and his bodyguard are guilty. Instead, it ensures that the truth will be investigated by a neutral body, and not by those whose colleagues stand accused. That clarity itself is an important protection for ordinary citizens.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the investigation into the death of the petitioner’s brother, allegedly caused by firing by a Dy. S.P. (Traffic) and his bodyguard, should continue with Bihar Police/CID or be transferred to an independent agency like CBI.
Answer: The Patna High Court held that, considering the allegations against police officials themselves, the sequence of police-initiated FIRs, and the prima facie attempt to shield the accused, the investigation must be transferred to CBI for a fair, transparent and credible probe. - Issue: Whether the existence of ongoing investigation by CID and collection of evidence and expert reports prevents the High Court from ordering transfer to CBI.
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that constitutional courts can direct CBI investigation even when investigation is ongoing or charge-sheet is filed, if required to secure a fair investigation and uphold public confidence. - Issue: Whether the Court should direct immediate arrest of the accused police officers as prayed by the petitioner.
Answer: The status report noted that immediate arrest without completing necessary investigation into whether the firing was in self-defence or otherwise would be against settled law. The Court did not issue a direction for arrest but instead ensured transfer of the entire investigation to CBI.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 200
- R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143
- State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571
- Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 79
- Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 768
- Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 795
- Pooja Pal v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 135
- Hansurabai & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1119
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.443 of 2025
Case Title: Rana Rahul Ranjan v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 705
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar
Date of Judgment: 30-07-2025
FIRs Involved:
- Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1038 of 2024
- Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1039 of 2024
- Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.1040 of 2024
Relevant Statutes/Sections:
- Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 103(1), 351(2)(3)(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 27 of the Arms Act
- Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
Nature of the Case: Criminal writ petition seeking directions for proper, fair, impartial and speedy investigation of a police firing death case, including prayer for independent investigation and court monitoring.
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
- For the State of Bihar: S.C.20
- For the CBI: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Central Government Counsel; Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Amarjeet, Advocate
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
