Back
Jharkhand HC Sides with ED: CBI to Probe Assault FIR Amid Peyjal Scam Tensions
In a tense clash between central and state agencies, the has refused to quash an FIR against two officers but ordered its investigation transferred to the . Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi , in a 51-page order dated , cited " " involving ED's high-profile probes into Jharkhand's political elite. The petitioners, ED Assistant Director Pratik and Assistant Enforcement Officer Shubham Bharti , faced allegations from Santosh Kumar , a key accused in the Rs 23-crore Peyjal drinking water scam.
From ED Office to Police Station: The Spark of Controversy
The drama unfolded on , at ED's Ranchi Zonal Office, where the agency is probing scams implicating the Chief Minister, former Minister Alamgir Alam, and IAS officers like Pooja Singhal and Chhavi Ranjan. Santosh Kumar, principal accused in misappropriating Rs 23 crore from the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department—with ED recovering Rs 9 crore so far—arrived unsummoned around 1:20 PM.
ED claims Kumar grew evasive during questioning on his role in siphoning 10% of tender values (5% to ministers, commissions to secretaries and engineers). He allegedly grabbed a glass water jug and struck his own head, causing a minor scalp injury. Officers rushed him to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi, where the OPD card (Reg. No. 2719) noted the wound as . A second check at 8:10 PM confirmed fitness with only the superficial injury.
Kumar, however, lodged Airport PS Case No. 5/2026 on under (attempt to murder), (grievous hurt), (wrongful confinement), (intimidation), (insult), (evidence tampering), and (common intention)— mirroring IPC 307, 323/325, etc. On , post-midnight email notice, police swarmed the ED office at 6 AM, treating it as a crime scene without prior inquiry under , disrupting operations.
Petitioners filed W.P. (Cr.) No. 52/2026 seeking FIR quashing, CBI transfer, counter-FIR registration, and stay—previously granted on with security directives and CCTV preservation.
Petitioners' Defence: False FIR to Shield Scam Syndicates?
Represented by ASGI S.V. Raju and others, ED argued Kumar's antics were a "pre-planned tactic" to derail probes. Key points: - No custodial violence : Self-injury proven by medical records; Kumar returned voluntarily post-treatment. - PMLA shield : Officers protected under for good-faith duties. - : Police raid sans notice suggests high-up instigation; their own cases (Sadar PS 562/2023, Kotwali 22/2024, Ranchi Sadar 251/2024) against Kumar ignored. - CBI need : State police biased amid ED's explosive revelations (e.g., Kumar's cash distributions).
They invoked (no probe if no cognizable offence) and (mandatory FIR only on clear cognizables).
State's Pushback: Law & Order is Ours, No Mini-Trial Here
Senior Advocate Nnaganmthu S. for Jharkhand, with counsel for Kumar ( ), countered: - Cognizable offence disclosed : Injuries alleged; BNS sections justify FIR. - State domain : Law/order a State List matter; no routine CBI transfer ( ). - No protection : Acts not in " " ( ); CCTV absent despite Supreme Court mandates ( ). - Procedural flaws : Rejoinders by non-petitioner; no FIR prayer in ED complaint.
They cited (no second FIRs) and (no merits probe during investigation).
Court's Sharp Rebuke: Roster Games Over, Fair Probe Paramount
Dismissing State's roster objection—insisting the bench lacked allocation for CBI-related writs—Justice Dwivedi affirmed jurisdiction under the notified roster for
"Criminal Writ relating to
and
."
He lambasted recusal pleas as "
," quoting
Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal
(2020) 6 SCC 304:
"Recusal is not to be forced by any litigant... I would be committing a grave blunder by recusal... posterity will not forgive me."
On merits, FIR quashing denied (
parameters unmet—disputed self-injury vs. assault). But transfer to CBI ordered, noting police's "haste" suggesting
"instigation of some high-ups... accused under PMLA."
Echoing
State of WB v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
(2010) 3 SCC 571, the court stressed CBI for "exceptional situations" ensuring credibility (
).
Key Observations
"The manner police had reached to the office of the Enforcement Directorate that too in the early morningsuggests that it was on the instigation of some high-ups, who are accused under the."
"The investigation is required to be done fairly. The said allegation is made against the Central Government Agency. In view of that, fair investigation by an independent agency is the need of the hour."
"This Court is not in habit of keeping any matter part-heard as well as having no fascination of deciding a particular case... succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the oath of office."
CBI Takes the Reins: Implications for Agency Clashes
"Prayer (ii)... is allowed. The case being Airport P.S. Case No.5 of 2026... shall forthwith be transferred to the CBI."
Airport PS to hand over records; CBI Director to register and probe.
This balances FIR validity with impartiality, shielding ED from perceived state pressure while letting truth emerge. Future cases may cite it for CBI transfers in inter-agency tussles, reinforcing Khurshid Ahmad Chohan (2025) on "institutional bias." For Jharkhand's scam web, it signals judicial vigilance over political interference.
