Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
N. Tukaramji, J.
Pinninti Rachana Reddy and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.1573 of 2018
Decided on 9.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sujith Jaiswal, Learned Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
IMPORTANT POINT
Fair Investigation – Even in absence of proven mala fides, reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to warrant transfer of investigation.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 193] – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 226 – Abetment of suicide – Petition seeking fair investigation – Petitioners contend that investigation conducted by police authorities is biased and lacks fairness, as it seeks to shield accused officer – Despite serious allegations, no effective or impartial investigation has been undertaken – In cases where allegations are made against police officials themselves, investigation by same agency may give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias – Even in absence of proven mala fides, reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to warrant transfer of investigation – Investigation has remained pending for a considerable period – These factors cumulatively create a reasonable apprehension of lack of fairness, thereby undermining public confidence in investigative process – Investigation conducted by local police does not inspire confidence and falls short of constitutional mandate of a fair and impartial investigation under Article 21 of Constitution – Investigation transferred to CBCID. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:—
“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Orders calling for records relating to Crime no.110 of 2017 Dated 14.06.2017 on the file of Respondent No.4 Police Station as the same is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently to transfer the Case with FIR no.110/2017 Dated 14.6.2017 on the file of P.S. Kuknoorpally, Siddipet District to CBCID or any other independent impartial special investigating agency and pass such other and further order or orders…”
2. I have heard Mr. Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Petitioners’ Case
3.1. The brief facts, as set out by the petitioners, are that the husband of petitioner No.1 and son of petitioner No.2, namely late P. Prabhakar Reddy, who was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station Kukunoorpally, Siddipet District, allegedly committed suicide on 14.06.2017 during the afternoon hours at the Police Headquarters, Siddipet, by shooting himself on the forehead with his service revolver. On the same day, a complaint was lodged by one Bhaskar Reddy, the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1, before Kukunoorpally Police Station under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, resulting in registration of FIR in Crime No.110 of 2017. In the said complaint, a strong suspicion was expressed against the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gajwel, alleging that he had abetted the commission of suicide.
3.2. It is further the case of the petitioners that although the incident is stated to have occurred between 12:00 noon and 12:30 PM, by the time the family members reached the scene, certain crucial developments had already taken place. It is alleged, based on reliable information, that immediately after the incident, the said ACP entered the police quarters, secured and screened the crime scene, and removed a suicide note purportedly authored by the deceased, which allegedly contained the reasons for his death.
3.3. The petitioners further allege that the said ACP, abusing his official position, cleared the premises, locked the house from inside, tampered with material evidence, and removed valuables such as rings and chains from the body of the deceased. It is also contended that the deceased had been subjected to continuous harassment and coercion by the said superior officer, who allegedly compelled him to perform illegal and unofficial acts, thereby causing severe mental distress. The deceased is stated to have repeatedly expressed his anguish over such harassment, ultimately leading him to take the extreme step.
3.4. The petitioners further contend that the investigation conducted by the police authorities is biased and lacks fairness, as it seeks to shield the accused officer. Despite serious allegations, no effective or impartial investigation has been undertaken. The request of the petitioners for transfer of investigation to the CBCID has not been considered, and they have been excluded from the investigative process, thereby giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of collusion and miscarriage of justice.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the death of the deceased is not a simple case of suicide, but rather the result of harassment and coercion by the then ACP, Gajwel. It is alleged that the said officer, by abusing his position of authority, compelled the deceased to engage in unlawful activities, and that the resulting mental agony drove the deceased to commit suicide. It is further contended that the said ACP not only abetted the suicide but also interfered with the investigation by tampering with the crime scene, removing the suicide note, and taking away valuable articles from the deceased’s body. According to the
