Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jharkhand, Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, granted interim protection to a practicing advocate facing cross-FIRs stemming from a minor road accident in Ranchi, staying all further proceedings in both cases and directing that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. The court observed that where two cases arise from the same occurrence, a single investigating officer must handle both. The petitioner, who alleged police harassment and sought transfer of the investigation to an independent central agency citing bias concerns, was directed to be protected from harm by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, pending the next date of hearing.

The writ petition was mentioned before the High Court on the ground of urgency, with the petitioner alleging harassment by the police in connection with a minor road accident and absence of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. The petitioner sought transfer of investigation of two cases—Doranda P.S. Case No.51 of 2026 and Doranda P.S. Case No.52 of 2026—to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair and impartial investigation.

Also Read: Motor Accident | Supreme Court Restores 'Pay And Recover' Principle Against Insurer Where Deceased Travelled As Gratuitous Passenger In Goods Vehicle

According to the petitioner, while proceeding to the High Court, his car slightly touched a motorcycle, leading to an altercation. He alleged that he was detained at the police station for several hours and that his car was taken into custody without preparation of a seizure memo. It was further contended that separate investigating officers were assigned to the two cross-cases arising out of the same occurrence. Allegations were also made regarding media coverage, non-seizure of the motorcycle, apprehension of arrest, and violation of Supreme Court guidelines concerning arrest. The State sought time to file a counter affidavit.

The Court observed, “It is well known that if two cases arising out of same occurrence are there, both are required to be investigated by one investigating officer.”

On the scope of judicial directions, the Court stated, “It is not for the Courts to issue directions in the policy matters and it is for the Legislature and Executive to decide.” It further recorded, “For promotion of fundamental rights, directions can be issued in absence of any law. Moreover, directions and guidelines are permissible when issued in consonance and within the framework of existing statutory provisions.”

Referring to precedent, the Court observed that the directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar are “in consonance with the provisions contained in Sections 41 and 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. (now, Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023).” It also noted that the guidelines in D.K. Basu are “within the framework of Cr.P.C and power of superintendence of the authorities in the hierarchical system of the investigating agency.”

With regard to interim interference in investigation, the Court recorded, “This Court is conscious of the fact that at the initial stage of the FIR, no investigation can be stayed, and there are line of judgments on this issue to suffice to refer the Neeharika Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra… and in that case, guidelines have been issued as to how to pass the interim order in a criminal case.”

The Court further stated, “the federal structure of our Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be destroyed and it is a duty of the High Court that once such type of matter is brought to the knowledge of the Court, the High Court is required to rise to the occasion.”

Also Read: 'Right To Travel Abroad Is A Fundamental Right': Jharkhand High Court Modifies Bail Condition, Permits Ex-MLA’s Wife To Travel For Treatment

The Court directed, “there shall be stay of further proceeding including the investigation in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.51 of 2026 and Doranda P.S. Case No.52 of 2026 and no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.51 of 2026, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-XIII, Ranchi, till the next date of listing.”

“The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi shall take the stock of the situation and he will also ensure that no harm can be there to the petitioner. I.A. No.2861 of 2026 has been filed for exemption to file the Certified copy of the FIR. The said I.A is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to obtain the certified copy and file the same in the form of supplementary affidavit.”

“In the meantime, the learned counsel for the petitioner will remove the surviving defects.” Further, “The Office will proceed further as per the procedure.” The matter was directed to be listed on 24.03.2026.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mrs Ritu Kumar, Advocate; Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate; Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate; Ms. Akansha Priya, Advocate; Mr. Piyush Kumar Roy, Advocate; Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate; Mr. Karamjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III (State); Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, CGC (Union of India); Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI (CBI)

Case Title: Manoj Tandon v. The State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police and Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(Cr.) Filing No.4238 of 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi