In the Indian criminal justice system, the transfer of an investigation from the state police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not a routine occurrence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that such a step is an "extraordinary power," to be used "sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations." It is a judicial intervention reserved for cases where the investigation by the local police is so tainted, biased, or lackadaisical that it erodes public confidence in the very process of justice.
The case of Anu Duggal vs. State & Ors., decided by the Delhi High Court in November 2025, is a stark and sobering example of such an exceptional situation. It is a story that begins with the tragic death of a young man and unfolds into a harrowing tale of alleged investigative failures, unexplained discrepancies, and a mother’s unwavering fight to uncover the truth about her son's demise.
This blog post will deconstruct the High Court's landmark judgment, breaking down the complex legal and factual matrix to understand why the Court deemed it necessary to entrust the probe to the CBI.
The Tragic Foundation: The Death of Arnav Duggal
The factual backdrop is both poignant and suspicious. On June 13, 2017, Arnav Duggal, a 23-year-old hotel management graduate, was found dead in Flat No. 441, Shakuntalam Apartments, Dwarka, Delhi. The flat belonged to the family of Megha Tiwary (MT), a woman with whom Arnav had been in a relationship for two to three years.
The sequence of events leading to his death, as per the prosecution and MT, was as follows:
The Preceding Days: On June 11, 2017, Arnav and MT spent the day together at Hotel Radisson Blu in Dwarka.
The Night Out: On the intervening night of June 12 and 13, they, along with friends, partied across Delhi-NCR.
The Fateful Morning: In the early morning of June 13, after dropping their friends, Arnav and MT went to the Radisson Blu again but decided to go to MT's flat instead. They arrived around 8:00 AM.
The Discovery: According to MT, she discovered Arnav's body at around 4:30 PM. She claimed he had committed suicide by hanging himself from a ceiling fan. She stated that she cut the ligature (the cloth used for hanging) with scissors, bringing his body down.
The Police Arrival: The police were informed via a PCR call at 5:25 PM, not by MT, but by the apartment's security staff. When the police arrived, they found Arnav's body on the floor, not hanging.
From the very beginning, Arnav's mother, Anu Duggal, the petitioner in this case, believed her son did not die by suicide. She alleged he was murdered, and the scene was dressed up to simulate a suicide. Her suspicions were met with what she described as a predetermined and callous investigation by the Delhi Police, who, she claimed, were intent on closing the case as a suicide.
A Litany of Lapses: The Petitioner’s Case for Transfer
The core of Mrs. Duggal's petition was that the investigation was "unfair, tainted, mala fide and smack[ed] of foul play." Her senior counsel, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, presented a devastating catalogue of discrepancies and investigative failures that formed the basis for seeking a transfer to the CBI. Let's examine the most critical ones:
1. The Demonstrably False Narrative of Megha Tiwary
The entire initial theory of suicide rested almost exclusively on MT's statement. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that key parts of her narrative were inconsistent and contradicted by evidence.
The "Harassment" Story: MT claimed Arnav had barged into her flat uninvited and was banging on her door for over an hour. However, CCTV footage and call detail records (CDRs) showed them entering the society together around 8:00 AM and communicating via multiple calls and messages between 7:55 AM and 8:16 AM. This painted a picture of coordination, not harassment.
The "Broken Relationship" Claim: MT asserted she had broken off the relationship a year (and later, four months) prior due to Arnav's possessiveness. Evidence, including hotel bookings and travel to cities like Rishikesh and Jaipur just months before the incident, along with over 136 calls and messages between them in the two days leading to his death, completely belied this claim.
2. The Puzzling Crime Scene & Evidence Handling
The handling of the physical evidence raised serious red flags, which were meticulously recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) monitoring the case.
The Mysterious Ceiling Fan: The fan from which Arnav allegedly hanged himself was never seized by the police. MT's father, Ranjeet Tiwary (RT), initially claimed the fan blades were bent and he sold it as scrap. However, photographs anonymously received by the petitioner showed the fan was intact, covered in dust and cobwebs—conditions unlikely to remain undisturbed if an 80 kg man had hanged from it. The CMM noted this was "inconceivable." Later, RT changed his statement, saying the blades were straight when he removed them.
The Missing & Mismatched Photographs: The crime scene photographer's statement was vague. The police initially claimed to have only 10 photographs, none of which showed the fan. The petitioner later received a different set of photographs anonymously, which included the one showing the dusty, intact fan. The CMM was forced to observe that crucial photographs were being deliberately kept out of the police file.
Selective Seizure: A wine bottle seen in the CCTV footage with Arnav was never seized. A knife found on the bed near the body was also not seized, and the scissors allegedly used to cut the ligature were never sent for fingerprint analysis.
3. The Tampering of Digital Evidence
This was perhaps the most damning aspect of the petitioner's case.
Unexplained Phone Activity: MT's mobile phone was seized on the evening of June 13, 2017, purportedly in a sealed condition. Shockingly, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report revealed that the phone was switched on and off 22 times between June 13 and June 23 while it was in the police malkhana (evidence room).
Deletion of Data: The FSL report confirmed that data—including texts, calls, and contacts—had been deleted from the phone after its seizure.
Delayed Seizure and Access: MT was allowed access to her phone for several hours after the police arrived, a critical period during which she made numerous calls. The police offered no satisfactory explanation for this delay or for the blatant tampering that occurred while the phone was in their custody.
4. The Inexplicable Delay and Conduct
Failure to Register an FIR: Despite the mysterious death of a young man, the police refused to register a First Information Report (FIR). It was only after the petitioner approached the CMM court under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, and after a detailed order on February 17, 2018, that an FIR under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC was finally registered.
The CMM’s Scathing Observations: The orders of the learned CMM, which are extensively quoted in the High Court judgment, reveal a pattern of resistance from the investigating agencies. The CMM noted a "predetermined mind to declare this a suicide," "exceptional stubbornness" from successive investigating officers, and a "lackadaisical" approach to collecting crucial evidence like call records and CCTV footage.
The State’s Defence: A Case of Suicide
The State, represented by Mr. Amol Sinha, argued that the petitioner's case was a figment of imagination. Their defence rested on two main pillars:
1. The Post-Mortem Report: The autopsy, conducted by AIIMS, concluded the cause of death was "Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging" and noted that "hanging deaths are generally suicidal in nature." The State argued this medical evidence was unequivocal.
2. The Relationship Dynamics: The State presented text messages to show that Arnav was obsessive and MT was trying to distance herself. They argued that his mental state, fueled by possessiveness and the breakdown of the relationship, led him to take the extreme step.
The State attempted to explain away the discrepancies. Regarding the phone tampering, they suggested the power button may have been stuck. They argued that non-seizure of the fan and wine bottle was standard procedure in suicide cases. However, these explanations failed to convincingly address the cumulative weight of the lapses.
The Legal Crucible: When Can a Court Transfer an Investigation?
Before deciding the case, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela meticulously outlined the legal principles governing the transfer of investigations. Relying on a catena of Supreme Court judgments, including State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, the Court reiterated that such a power is to be exercised only in "rare and exceptional cases."
The key legal tests for transfer are:
1. Where the investigation lacks credibility and it is necessary to ensure a "fair, honest and complete investigation."
2. Where it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies.
3. Where the investigation is *prima facie* found to be tainted or biased.
4. Where high officials of the State are involved, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Court emphasized that this power is not to be used as a matter of routine but is a constitutional duty of the court to ensure justice when the investigative process itself becomes a casualty.
The High Court’s Analysis: Piercing the Veil of Investigative Failure
After a painstaking analysis of the facts and the law, the Delhi High Court concluded that this was precisely the kind of "rare and exceptional" case that warranted a CBI probe. The Court was not convinced that the truth had been uncovered.
Some of the Court's key observations were:
On the Mobile Phone Tampering: The Court outrightly rejected the State's "stuck power button" theory as "absurd." It held that the only logical conclusion was that someone had tampered with the sealed evidence, a grave act that struck at the root of the investigation's integrity.
On the Investigation’s Myopic View: The Court found that the police, the Crime Branch, and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had all "parroted" the same theory of suicide from the very inception without applying an "investigative or analytical and scientific mind" to the glaring discrepancies.
On the Collective Weight of Lapses: The Court did not view each lapse in isolation. Instead, it considered the "chain of circumstances"—the false statements, the non-seizure of the fan, the tampered phone, the scathing CMM orders, the delayed FIR—as creating an undeniable picture of an investigation that was shoddy, if not worse.
On the Alternative Remedy: The State argued that the petitioner could file a "protest petition" before the CMM against the Closure Report. The Court dismissed this, noting that the CMM could only order a "further investigation" by the same tainted agencies, not a transfer to the CBI. This would be an exercise in futility.
The Final Verdict and a Message of Hope
Convinced that a fresh, impartial, and scientific investigation was the only path to justice, the High Court allowed the petition. It directed:
1. The CBI to take up a fresh investigation into the death of Arnav Duggal.
2. All investigating agencies to hand over the entire record to the CBI within four weeks.
3. The CBI to also enquire into the lapses by the Delhi Police officers and submit a report for potential disciplinary action.
In a powerful concluding remark, the Court stated, "It is never too late to search for truth," drawing parallels to international cases like the Golden State Killer, where advancements in forensic technology and relentless investigation solved crimes decades later.
Conclusion: A Landmark for Accountability
The judgment in Anu Duggal v. State is more than just the transfer of a single case. It is a robust reaffirmation of the judiciary's role as the guardian of justice. It sends a clear message that the courts will not remain silent spectators when the very agencies tasked with uncovering the truth fail in their duty, whether due to incompetence, bias, or external influence.
For Anu Duggal, it was a hard-fought victory in a battle that had lasted over eight years. For the legal system, it is a precedent that underscores that the pursuit of truth is paramount, and no obstacle—not even the passage of time or the failure of the state machinery—can be an absolute impediment to justice. The case now rests with the CBI, with the hope that a professional and untainted investigation will finally provide the answers a grieving mother has sought for so long.
0 Comments