The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has formally consigned to record a criminal writ petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the death of Bhojpuri actress and model Akanksha Dubey. The petition, filed by the mother of the deceased, Madhu Dubey, requested that the investigation into the incident, which occurred in March 2023 in Varanasi, be transferred from the Uttar Pradesh Police to the federal investigative agency. A division bench comprising Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II dismissed the plea after determining that the arguments presented to classify the death as homicidal were legally untenable and failed to account for existing procedural developments in the lower courts.

The proceedings at the High Court centered on the current status of the investigation. It was brought to the bench's attention that the investigating officer had already concluded the statutory investigation into the case, which was registered at the Sarnath Police Station in District Varanasi. A charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to the abetment of suicide, was submitted to the jurisdictional magistrate on June 3, 2023. Subsequently, the magistrate took formal cognizance of the offence on June 6, 2023. Given that the legal process had moved past the investigative phase, the court found the request for an entirely new investigation or re-investigation to be procedurally misplaced.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner contended that the death of the actress was not a result of suicide, but was instead an act of homicide. Central to this argument was the forensic finding of spermatozoa in the biological samples recovered from the deceased. The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the forensic match provided compelling evidence of foul play, alleging that the actress was murdered before her body was hanged. To support this narrative, arguments were raised concerning the physical positioning of the deceased as observed in photographs, specifically noting the contact of her foot with the ground and her seated posture on the bed.

The bench, however, subjected these claims to rigorous judicial scrutiny. The judges specifically inquired whether the petitioner had challenged the post-mortem report or the findings of the autopsy surgeon before the District Magistrate by seeking a re-medical examination of the body. Counsel for the petitioner admitted that no such formal objection had been filed. Furthermore, the court questioned why no protest petition had been lodged against the police report or the charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer. The bench underscored that established legal procedures, as defined by Supreme Court precedents, provide specific mechanisms for aggrieved parties to challenge police findings before a magistrate. The petitioner acknowledged that no such protest petition had been initiated in this case.

The court articulated a clear stance regarding the impossibility of conducting further investigations under the current circumstances. The bench remarked, "In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that all the arguments raised in the present writ petition in support of the submission that death of deceased is homicidal and not suicidal, are wholly misconceived as in absence of corpus of deceased, no further investigation in the manner of occurrence or cause of death can be conducted." By emphasizing the absence of the corpus , the court indicated that the opportunity for gathering primary medical evidence of the cause of death had long since passed, and the ongoing judicial process before the trial court was the only appropriate forum for adjudicating the merits of the allegations.

The legal dispute originated following the tragic death of Akanksha Dubey in a hotel room in Varanasi on March 26, 2023, while she was visiting the city for a professional film shoot. The subsequent police investigation led to the arrest of singer Samar Singh and his business partner, Sanjay Singh, in April 2023. The petitioner’s legal team had expressed deep dissatisfaction with the local police investigation, suggesting it was tainted, that forensic findings were mismanaged, and that there was a lack of coordination regarding DNA evidence. There were also allegations that the initial First Information Report did not accurately reflect the account provided by the family, and that CCTV evidence might have been mishandled.

Despite these wide-ranging concerns, the division bench maintained that the judiciary must operate within the established boundaries of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court indicated that the arguments offered by the petitioner—while vociferous—did not constitute a sufficient legal basis to override the ongoing trial process. By rejecting the petition, the court effectively upheld the sanctity of the trial court’s role, which is now responsible for evaluating the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense as the case proceeds toward a final determination.

With the dismissal of the petition, the trial court in Varanasi remains the competent authority to proceed with the case under the existing charge-sheet. The matter has been consigned to the record, signifying that no further substantive action will be taken by the High Court regarding the plea for a CBI investigation. The legal path forward will be dictated by the progress of the proceedings in the lower court, where the parties will have the opportunity to contest the findings during the trial. The current legal status of the case is now definitively tied to the prosecution’s case as filed, with no further judicial intervention from the High Court at this stage of the litigation.