##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:13908]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2186/2026

Mangat Ram S/o Nikku Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Jhandawali, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh Raj..

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Hathe Singh S/o Kamal Singh, Resident Of Gandhi Nagar, Barmer Raj..

3. Muse Khan S/o Male Khan, Resident Of Baiya Jhijhanyali, Jaisalmer Raj..

4. Mala Ram S/o Sardara Ram, Resident Of Viratra Nagar, Barmer Raj..

5. Drish S/o Aadam Khan, Resident Of Khara Rathodan, Barmer Raj..

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopi Ram Goyal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

24/03/2026 The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed

under Section 528 of the BNSS against the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Barmer, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on 04.07.2024, seeking further investigation in Sessions Case No. 148/2024 (arising out of FIR No. 328/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC), has been

dismissed.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:07:47 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:46:54 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13908] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-2186/2026]

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the

aforesaid order dated 16.02.2026 on the ground that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material irregularities and lapses in the investigation. It is submitted that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency is wholly lacunose and perfunctory. The statements of the eye-witnesses have not been

recorded, and no meaningful investigation has been carried out.

It is further submitted that the FIR itself records that media

persons were present at the spot, indicating the existence of video recordings; however, no effort has been made by the Investigating Agency to collect or produce such vital evidence. Learned counsel submits that several other important aspects were specifically pointed out before the learned trial Court, but the same have not been properly considered, and the application has

been rejected in a cursory manner.

It is contended that the case was fit for directing further

investigation. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neetu Kumar Nagaich vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2020 SC 5267 , Pooja Pal v. Union Of India reported in (2016) AIR (SCW)1345 and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. v. State

of Gujarat, reported in 2019 INSC 1146.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the petition and submitted that the police conducted a proper investigation and thereafter filed the report in accordance

with law.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:07:47 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:46:54 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13908] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-2186/2026]

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused

the impugned order dated 16.02.2026.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pooja Pal v. Union of

India(supra) has emphatically held that a fair, transparent and judicious investigation is a constitutional imperative, and any investigation which is tainted, unfair or incomplete cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The relevant observations are

reproduced hereinbelow:—

"64. This Court in Babubhai (supra) while examining the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code, did recall its observations in Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1,that it is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well as of the courts to ensure, that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. It underlined, that the equally enforceable canon of criminal law is that high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency, not to conduct an investigation in a tainted and unfair manner and that su