Investigation Lacking Bona Fides and Riddled with 'Glaring Lapses' Warrants Transfer to CBI Under Article 226 to Ensure Justice: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Transfers Arnav Duggal Death Case to CBI, Cites 'Glaring Lapses' and 'Myopic' Police Probe

New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has transferred the investigation into the 2017 death of 23-year-old Arnav Duggal to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Citing a litany of "crucial and material lacunae," Justice Tushar Rao Gedela concluded that the investigation by the Delhi Police lacked bona fides and was conducted "myopically," necessitating the intervention of an independent agency to ensure complete justice.

The court directed the CBI to conduct a fresh investigation and also to inquire into the lapses by the Delhi Police officers involved.

Case Background: A Mother's Fight for Truth

The case revolves around the death of Arnav Duggal, a hotel management graduate, who was found dead under mysterious circumstances on June 13, 2017, in the Dwarka flat of his friend, Ms. Megha Tiwary (MT). The police initially treated the death as a suicide.

Arnav's mother, Ms. Anu Duggal, the petitioner, relentlessly pursued the matter, alleging foul play. After facing inaction from the police, she was compelled to approach the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), who, in February 2018, directed the registration of an FIR for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. Despite the case being transferred from the local police to the Crime Branch and then to a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the petitioner contended that the probe remained tainted and fixated on the suicide theory, prompting her to file the present writ petition seeking a CBI probe.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Stance: A Tainted and Predetermined Investigation

Senior Advocate Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, representing the petitioner, argued that the police committed a "greatest fallacy" by presuming the death was a suicide based solely on the version of MT, the only other person present in the flat. He highlighted numerous severe discrepancies:

• Evidence Tampering: MT's mobile phone, seized hours after the police arrived, was switched on and off multiple times while in police custody. The court later termed the police's explanation for this as "absurd."
• Mishandling of Crime Scene: The ceiling fan, from which Arnav allegedly hanged himself, was never seized and was later sold as scrap by MT's father. Crucial photographs of the crime scene were initially missing from the police file and only surfaced after the petitioner received them anonymously.
• Inconsistent Statements: MT's claims about her relationship with the deceased and the events leading to his death were demonstrably false and contradicted by call records and CCTV footage.
• Judicial Censure: The CMM had repeatedly passed orders criticizing the "exceptional stubbornness" and "predetermined mind" of the investigating officers.

The State's Defense: A Thorough Probe

Mr. Amol Sinha, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, refuted the allegations, arguing that the investigation was thorough and conducted by three different police bodies. The State maintained that:

• The post-mortem report concluded the cause of death was "Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging," consistent with suicide.
• A polygraph test conducted on MT by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) found her to be truthful.
• The deceased was portrayed as obsessive, and MT was trying to distance herself from him, providing a possible motive for suicide.
• Any perceived lapses, such as the non-seizure of the fan, were explained as standard procedure in suicide cases.

High Court's Scathing Analysis of the Investigation

Justice Gedela, in a detailed judgment, systematically dismantled the State's defense, finding the investigation to be deeply flawed. The court observed that its task was "akin to walking the razor’s edge" but that the "exceptional and compelling circumstances" warranted exercising its extraordinary powers.

> "If a grave suspicion arises with regard to the investigation, should a constitutional court close its hands and accept the proposition that as the trial has commenced, the matter is beyond it? ...the imperium of the constitutional courts cannot be stifled or smothered..." - the Court observed, quoting a Supreme Court precedent.

The court identified several "glaring lapses":

• Tampering of Evidence: The court found the possibility of manual interference with MT's seized phone highly likely and rejected the police's explanation.
• Failure to Secure the Crime Scene: The non-seizure of the fan was deemed a "most glaring lapse," especially given the contradictory statements about its condition. The failure to seize a knife found at the scene and to send the seized scissors for forensic analysis were also noted as basic investigative failures.
• Myopic Focus on Suicide: The court criticized the police for not exploring other angles, including the possibility of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, stating the investigation was "predicated only on the theory of suicide as stated by MT."
• Lackadaisical Approach: The judgment highlighted the inordinate delay in sending seized phones for forensic analysis, the failure to seize MT's phone promptly, and the inadequate analysis of call data records.

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding that the investigation lacked credibility and failed to instill confidence, the High Court allowed the writ petition. Rejecting the State's argument for the alternative remedy of a protest petition, the court held that such a step would be "otiose and nugatory" as the CMM lacks the power to order a CBI probe.

The court directed the CBI to conduct a fresh investigation into Arnav Duggal's death and to submit its report. In a move to ensure accountability, the CBI has also been tasked with conducting an inquiry into the lapses by the Delhi Police officers involved.

Concluding with a powerful statement on the pursuit of justice, the court remarked:

> "Thus, it is never too late to search for truth."

The judgment underscores the judiciary's role as a guardian of fair investigation and reinforces the principle that even years after an incident, the quest for truth can be revived if the initial probe is found to be fundamentally flawed.