Reserved on: 10.11.2025 Delivered on:28.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 935 OF 2025 Ranbir Singh Saehney ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others …..Respondents Presence Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, learned AGA and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the CBI.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to transfer the investigation in FIR No. 119 of 2024, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other specialised agency. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the State Investigating Agency has failed to conduct a fair, impartial, and timely investigation and that there is no likelihood of justice being secured unless the matter is transferred to an independent body having no local influence.

2. The factual matrix, as set out in the writ petition, is that the father of the Petitioner, Late Satinder Singh Sawhney, allegedly committed suicide on 24.05.2024, whereafter the Petitioner lodged the FIR on the same day. It is stated that a suicide note was recovered from the clothes of the deceased, in which certain allegations were levelled against the accused persons.

3. As per the FIR, the deceased was under constant pressure, intimidation, and financial threat, which allegedly drove him to take the extreme step. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Penal Code, and thereafter, during the course of investigation, Sections 385, 420 and 120B were added on the basis of certain documents and statements collected by the Investigating Officer. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that both accused persons were arrested during the initial period of investigation and were granted police custody remand by the jurisdictional Magistrate for the purpose of further investigation of the additional sections. Their bail applications before the Magistrate as well as before the Sessions Court were rejected.

6. However, at a subsequent stage, both accused were granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.07.2024, subject to conditions. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the said bail order contained some observations regarding the need for a proper assessment of material during trial, but after being enlarged on bail, the accused persons have allegedly attempted to influence and derail the investigation.

7. It is further submitted that on 22.10.2024, in connected proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, the State made a statement before this Court that the charge sheet was likely to be filed within a few days. Again, on 09.05.2025, in proceedings arising out of the connected criminal writ petitions filed by the accused, the State informed the Court that the investigation was in its final stage.

Despite these assurances, the Petitioner asserts that even after several months, no Charge sheet has been submitted before the competent court. This, according to the Petitioner, shows deliberate inaction, unexplained delay, and a lack of seriousness in pursuing the investigation.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner goes further to allege that the concerned Investigating Officer had personally informed him that the accused persons had approached senior officials and had submitted written instructions suggesting the manner in which the investigation should be conducted. It is argued that such conduct amounts to interference with the investigation and reflects the influence wielded by the accused.

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner con