The Jharkhand High Court has transferred the investigation into the disappearance of a minor girl, who has remained untraced since October 2020, to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court took the decision after examining the circumstances surrounding the girl's disappearance, the progress of the investigation conducted by the district police and subsequently by the Criminal Investigation Department, and the material indicating that the investigation had developed cross-state and digital dimensions. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of the missing girl. The Court noted that the case involved considerable complexity, cross-jurisdictional aspects and digital trails extending across different States.
The girl was around 14 years old when she disappeared. According to the petition, she had left her residence on October 16, 2020, at around 10:45 AM to attend tuition classes but never returned home. An FIR was registered at Pindrajora Police Station in Bokaro on the same day. The girl's family thereafter repeatedly approached the police and other authorities seeking information about her whereabouts and requesting that she be traced and recovered. Despite the passage of more than five and a half years, the girl remained untraced when the matter came before the High Court.
The circumstances immediately following her disappearance were also placed before the Court. According to the petition, a bicycle, slippers and notebooks belonging to the girl were found scattered on the road leading towards Kurma Hospital shortly after she had left home. These articles formed part of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and were brought to the attention of the authorities and subsequently before the High Court. The girl's mother approached the Court alleging that the authorities had failed to trace or recover her daughter despite the considerable period that had elapsed since the registration of the FIR.
The mother invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court through a habeas corpus petition and contended that the failure to trace the minor girl for such a prolonged period amounted to a violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner's grievance was that despite repeated efforts by the family and the registration of the FIR on the very day of the disappearance, the investigation had not resulted in the recovery of the girl. The High Court therefore examined the investigation undertaken by the authorities and the progress made in the matter.
Initially, the investigation was conducted by the district police. It was subsequently transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department. During the proceedings, the High Court examined the case diary to assess the steps taken by the investigating agencies. The case diary showed that the investigation had included efforts to conduct Narco-Analysis Tests on four suspects. Three of those tests were conducted in January 2023, while the test concerning one suspect could not be conducted because that person was found to be medically unfit.
The investigation proceeded on the basis that the minor girl had been kidnapped. The High Court examined the manner in which this possibility had been investigated and the steps taken by the police and CID to locate the girl and identify the circumstances surrounding her disappearance. The Court's examination of the case diary led it to question whether sufficient fresh efforts had been undertaken after the investigation was transferred to the CID.
After examining the case diary, the Bench expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the investigation. The Court observed that there had been no fresh endeavour by the investigating officer beyond the investigation that had already been undertaken by the Bokaro Police. The material placed before the Court substantially repeated earlier witness statements rather than demonstrating significant new investigative steps capable of advancing the search for the missing girl.
The High Court subsequently interacted with senior officials of the CID. During those proceedings, the Court was informed that a Special Investigation Team had been constituted to investigate the disappearance. The formation of the Special Investigation Team was part of the subsequent efforts to examine the case and identify new leads that could assist in tracing the missing girl.
During the proceedings, a member of the technical team informed the Court that certain clues had led investigators to Gopalganj in Bihar. There, a woman had been identified whose physical appearance was found to match that of the missing girl to an extent of 90 per cent. However, the investigators were unable to conclusively establish that the woman was the missing girl. The High Court therefore questioned the basis upon which the 90 per cent physical match had been assessed.
In response to the Court's query, the technical team stated that the assessment of the physical similarity was based on e-KYC information. The Court also examined whether more advanced technological methods could be used to establish the identity of the woman or to develop further leads concerning the missing girl. In this context, the Bench questioned why advanced technological tools such as gait analysis were not being used during the investigation.
The technical members of the Special Investigation Team informed the Court that gait-analysis technology was not presently available in Jharkhand. The absence of such technology was one of the circumstances considered by the Court while examining whether the investigation required assistance from a central agency possessing additional technical and forensic resources. The Court thereafter considered whether the circumstances warranted transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
The State informed the High Court that the investigation had revealed cross-boundary and inter-State dimensions. Digital activity connected with the investigation had been traced to Delhi, Telangana and West Bengal. The investigation also involved obtaining information and data from foreign entities, including Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC. These developments indicated that the investigation was no longer confined to the jurisdiction in which the girl had disappeared.
The State further submitted that the CID required assistance from the CBI because of the complexity of the digital trails and the absence of advanced forensic resources within the State. The authorities therefore acknowledged that the investigation had developed technological and inter-State aspects requiring resources and expertise beyond those available to the State investigation agency.
The Advocate General appearing for the State also informed the Court that the State would have no objection to transferring the investigation to the CBI if the High Court considered such a course necessary for tracing the missing girl. The State's position was therefore that it would facilitate assistance from a central agency if the Court found that such assistance was required in the circumstances of the case.
The High Court took note of the State's willingness to facilitate the involvement of a central agency and considered the legal principles governing the transfer of investigations to the CBI. The Bench observed that the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI does not operate under any inflexible guideline and that such a direction cannot be issued routinely. The Court examined the circumstances in which such a transfer may be considered necessary.
The Court observed that a transfer to the CBI may be directed in circumstances involving national or international ramifications, where such a step is necessary to enforce fundamental rights, or where the complexity and scale of the allegations require the expertise of a central agency. The Bench stated that the Court must be satisfied from the material placed before it that there is a prima facie disclosure of offences and that a CBI investigation is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, or that the complexity, scale or national ramifications of the allegations require the expertise of a central agency.
The Bench further held that the High Court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, can direct the transfer of an investigation to the CBI where such transfer is necessary to unearth the truth and secure the ends of justice. The Court referred particularly to cases involving grave complexity, cross-jurisdictional or national ramifications, or circumstances in which the scale and intricacy of the incident requires specialised expertise and resources.
Applying these principles to the case before it, the High Court considered the fact that the minor girl had remained missing since October 16, 2020, despite an FIR having been registered on the same day. The Court also considered the progress of the investigation by the district police and the subsequent transfer to the CID. Despite the change in investigating agency, the Court found it necessary to direct further investigation by the CBI in view of the circumstances brought on record.
The Court's consideration included the prolonged period during which the girl had remained untraced. The district police investigation had not yielded the requisite progress, and the High Court had found that the subsequent investigation had not demonstrated sufficient fresh endeavour beyond the earlier investigation. At the same time, the case had developed digital and inter-State dimensions involving several States and information from foreign technology companies. These circumstances were considered together while deciding whether the CBI should take over the investigation.
The identification of a woman in Gopalganj whose physical appearance reportedly matched that of the missing girl to an extent of 90 per cent also formed part of the material considered by the Court. However, the investigation agency had not been able to conclusively establish the woman's identity. The Court's questions concerning the basis of the match and the availability of technological tools demonstrated that the identity issue remained unresolved. The technical team had informed the Court that gait analysis was not available in Jharkhand.
The investigation also involved digital activity extending beyond Jharkhand. The State informed the Court that digital trails had been traced to Delhi, Telangana and West Bengal. Data was also being sought from Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC. The cross-state nature of these digital trails and the need to obtain information from foreign entities were among the circumstances that demonstrated the wider scope of the investigation.
The Court therefore concluded that the circumstances warranted transfer of the investigation to the CBI. The Bench directed that the investigation be forthwith handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The direction transfers responsibility for further investigation from the State agencies to the central agency.
The proceedings arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of the missing minor girl. The case was registered as Writ Petition (Cr.) (HB) (DB) No. 314 of 2026. The case title has been recorded with the petitioner's name redacted as XXX v. State of Jharkhand and Others. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Vincent Rohit Marki. The State was represented by Advocate General Rohitashya Roy and Advocate Vibhor Mayank, while the CBI was represented by ASGI Prashant Pallav and Advocate Shivani Jaluka.
The High Court's order thus records the progression of the investigation from the district police to the CID and ultimately to the CBI. The district police had initially investigated the disappearance after the FIR was registered. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the CID, which constituted a Special Investigation Team. During the proceedings, the Court examined the investigation record and questioned the extent of fresh investigative efforts. The Court was subsequently informed about leads in Bihar, digital trails across several States and the need for technical and forensic assistance.
The Court also considered the State's position that assistance from the CBI was required because of the complexity of the digital trails and the lack of advanced forensic resources within Jharkhand. The State had no objection to the transfer if the Court considered it necessary. In view of the prolonged disappearance, the lack of requisite progress in the earlier investigation, the cross-jurisdictional aspects and the digital evidence extending across several States and involving foreign entities, the Court ordered that the CBI take over the investigation.
The transfer was therefore directed with the objective of enabling further investigation into the disappearance and tracing the missing girl. The High Court's order records that the investigation involved grave complexity and cross-jurisdictional dimensions and that the circumstances required specialised expertise and resources. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the transfer of the investigation to the CBI and ordered that the matter be forthwith handed over to the central agency.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.