Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Shalini Thakur, Wife of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Verma, learned AAG-3 for the State assisted by Dr. Anand Kumar, learned Advocate, Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the Economic Offence Unit (in short ‘EOU’) assisted by Mr. Vijay Anand and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned senior counsel who has entered appearance today on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8. It is recorded that no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8, however, the Court has heard learned senior counsel for those respondents.
2. This writ application has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
The court reinforced the necessity for prompt and effective investigation of economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, highlighting the accountability of State authorities....
The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation by the Economic Offence Unit and the transfer of all FIRs to the Economic Offence Police Station.
The court established that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct an investigation by a specific agency unless there is a prima facie case supported by substantial evidence, and that alternati....
Further investigation – Order directing handing over investigation to any other agency other than police should not be passed in favour of party applying for it as a matter of right or in a routine m....
The court's emphasis on the conclusion of the investigation by Investigating Agencies as a central legal point.
The court has the jurisdiction to entertain petitions with a public law element, and inadequate investigation justifies transfer to a central agency.
The High Court upheld the trial court's discretion regarding further investigation, ruling that no illegality was found in the prior investigations conducted by CBI.
The judgment emphasizes the need for fair investigation and clarifies the exceptional circumstances for transferring investigation to the CBI.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article