Patna HC Transfers Investigation to CBI After Son Goes Missing from Excise Police Custody in Bhojpur
Finding nine months of State police inaction and a compromised investigation, the Patna High Court orders the CBI to take charge of the case of Sanoj Kumar, missing since an excise raid on 13 August 2025.
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, has transferred the investigation of Bihiya PS Case No. 296 of 2025 to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The order, pronounced on 29 July 2026 and uploaded on 7 August 2026, follows a criminal writ petition filed by Gauri Shankar Ram, an elderly man from village Ganj, Post Ossain, PS Bihiya, District Bhojpur, whose son Sanoj Kumar has not been seen since the evening of 13 August 2025. Sanoj Kumar was last seen being dragged by excise police personnel and placed in a police vehicle. The court found that for nearly nine months after the FIR was lodged, the State investigating agency took no meaningful step to interrogate suspects, secure forensic material, or record witness statements — a failure the bench characterised as rendering the credibility of the State agency itself at stake.
What Happened on 13 August 2025
Sanoj Kumar, a centring mistri working at construction sites, left for work on 13 August 2025. At about 6:35 PM, his brother Rakesh Kumar received a call from Sanoj's mobile number 9931845367. Sanoj said excise police had apprehended him near Kali Mandir at Dharahara Musahar Toli on allegations of consuming liquor. He called again shortly after to say police were beating him. The call then went dead and his phone was found switched off.
The family went to Bihiya Police Station and then to Jagdishpur Police Station. They were told several persons had been detained and released after interrogation, but no information was given about Sanoj. On 14 August 2025, the petitioner's abandoned motorcycle — a Hero Super Splendor bearing registration no. BR03AF7624 — was found near Dharahara Musahar Toli and later handed over to the family. On the same day, Gauri Shankar Ram lodged a written complaint at Bihiya Police Station, resulting in registration of Bihiya PS Case No. 296 of 2025.
The CDR of mobile number 9931845367 showed its last tower location as Jagdishpur Police Station. On 24 August 2025, a member of Jagdishpur Police Station surrendered the handset — an Oppo Android phone — to the Investigating Officer in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur. The second mobile phone of the victim remained unrecovered.
Eyewitnesses privately told the petitioner that Sanoj had been brutally assaulted, left unable to walk, denied drinking water, and dragged away with a gamcha tied around his neck into a police vehicle. A private CCTV camera near Dharahara Musahar Toli captured two police vehicles arriving one after another. Personnel in civil dress and in uniform are seen detaining individuals and subjecting them to physical assault. The victim is shown being dragged by the neck and taken away. The vehicles then departed in a direction away from the police station. A government CCTV camera at the same location was never secured despite repeated requests by the family.
On 17 August 2025, when the family visited Bihiya Police Station to seek information, police personnel subjected them to caste-based and derogatory abuse. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Castes community. The family was told not to visit the station again. Two police officers involved were transferred in the intervening period.
The Petition and the State's Delayed Response
Gauri Shankar Ram filed Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1029 of 2026 before the Patna High Court. He sought production of his son, protection of his son's life and liberty, a CBI or independent agency investigation, preservation of CDRs and CCTV footage, and compensation for illegal detention if established. He also placed on record representations submitted to the District Magistrate Bhojpur, Superintendent of Police Bhojpur, the National Human Rights Commission, and the Bihar State Human Rights Commission.
When the writ application came up for the first time on 13 May 2026, the court directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, to personally supervise the case and submit a report within four weeks, and required that police officials against whom allegations had been made be kept away from the investigation. No counter-affidavit was filed within that period. On 17 June 2026, the court granted one week's final time. A counter-affidavit was eventually filed by the SP, Bhojpur (Respondent No. 5).
What the SP's Counter-Affidavit Revealed
The counter-affidavit by the SP, Arrah, admitted that the Excise Department, Bhojpur had conducted a raid on 13 August 2025 and had arrested some persons. The excise raid team's version was that all arrested persons were later released, and that near Chaurasta one arrested person had jumped from the jeep and fled. The SP gave a clean chit to the Bhojpur regular police and attributed all allegations to the Excise Department. The CCTV footage from the main road near the place of occurrence, the SP said, did not yield any clear image of vehicles or persons.
On the recommendation of the Deputy SP, Jagdishpur, polygraph tests were conducted on members of the excise raiding team. Based on those results, the SHO, Bihiya, named seven suspects from the raid team: ASI Excise Department Raj Kumar, ASI Excise Department Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Home Guard 132485 Dharmendra Paswan, Home Guard 132627 Umesh Kumar Yadav, Home Guard Raju Kumar Singh, Driver Surendra Kumar Singh, and Driver Vikash Kumar.
The court found on 24 June 2026 that more than ten months had passed since the FIR, the victim's whereabouts remained unknown, none of the suspects had been arrested and interrogated, and the Excise Inspector — Respondent No. 9 — had not filed any counter-affidavit at all. The bench directed the DM Bhojpur, SP Bhojpur, SHO Bihiya, and the Excise Inspector/In-charge Jagdishpur to appear, in person or online, on 30 June 2026 with all records.
Officers Called to Court; Records Still Not Produced
On 30 June 2026, despite the court's specific direction to produce records, the records were not brought. Some officers joined online. The court directed that all named officers appear in person in the post-lunch session with all records. After that session, the court heard the petitioner's counsel, the Advocate General, and interacted directly with the DM Bhojpur, SP Arrah, and the SHO Jagdishpur Police Station.
The SHO, Jagdishpur, placed the case diary before the court. Investigation had initially been handed to SI Bimlesh Kumar on 14 August 2025. The case diary showed that five persons in civil dress had taken away five boys from Dharahara Musahar Toli on the date of occurrence. Witnesses identified these persons as excise police officials. CDR analysis confirmed that Sanoj Kumar called his father at 6:35 PM and 6:43 PM, and that the tower location of one of his mobiles corresponded to Jagdishpur Excise Police Station.
The SHO further informed the court that when he visited the Excise Police Station and questioned Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar and Sub-Inspector Dheeraj Kumar Singh, they said they had conducted a raid and arrested four or five persons, all of whom were released. They said nothing about Sanoj Kumar. The court then learned that on 23 August 2025 — ten days after the incident — both SIs had voluntarily visited Jagdishpur Police Station and handed over the Oppo Android handset (IMEI Nos. 860150061683670, 860150061683662) belonging to Sanoj Kumar. The phone had not been sent to FSL for forensic examination even then.
The SIs later disclosed a revised account: three persons out of five arrested were put in the vehicle; near Bihiya Chaurasta, traffic caused the vehicle to divert to the highway; at that point one person sitting in the dickey opened it and fled. Dheeraj Kumar Singh added that he had taken that person's mobile phone and kept it — concealing this for days — handing it over only after senior officers directed him to. He said fear was the reason for non-disclosure.
The bench recorded its displeasure at how the first IO and the SHO of Jagdishpur had conducted the investigation, observing that they appeared to be helping the accused persons even after those persons had been identified as suspects.
Interrogation, CCTV Footage, and the Bolero Vehicle
On 2 July 2026, the court was informed that after taking six suspects into custody, the SP, Bhojpur personally interrogated them. It emerged that Sanoj Kumar had been taken into custody along with two others: Manish Yadav and Mira Yadav. The excise officers were making incongruous and inconsistent statements. Interrogation revealed that during a scuffle, the private driver of the excise police vehicle — Driver Vikash Kumar — had put a towel around Sanoj's neck and was pulling him. One suspect, Driver Surendra Kumar Singh, was yet to be taken into custody at that stage.
The court viewed the CCTV footage preserved in a pen drive under a certificate from the device owner. Without recording a formal opinion, the bench observed that the vehicle in which the victim and the two others were placed was a Bolero, fully enclosed, and that it was not possible to flee from its dickey by jumping unless the rear gate was opened from outside. The SP told the court that the excise officials being interrogated were not disclosing the complete truth.
The court interacted with the petitioner, Gauri Shankar Ram, who appeared in person. The court also contacted, over the SHO's telephone, the mother of Manish Yadav — another person who had been in the vehicle — to assure her that anyone assisting the investigation would receive protection. The SP agreed that Manish Yadav and Mira Yadav were likely afraid to speak. Steps were taken under the Vulnerable Witness Scheme.
Gauri Shankar Ram stated before the court — in the presence of the Advocate General, the AAG, the SP, and other police officials — that several persons had approached him to hush up the case and that he was being pressurised to stop pursuing the matter. The court recorded that he was a vulnerable witness and directed the SP, Bhojpur to provide him and his family full protection from that day itself. The SP was further directed to identify and proceed against those who had approached the petitioner to persuade him to drop the case.
Steps Taken After 2 July 2026
On 7 July 2026, the court directed the SHO, Bihiya, to personally travel to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, to deliver Sanoj Kumar's recovered mobile phone for examination, and also requested the Director, FSL Hyderabad, to prioritise the examination. The ADG, State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB), Bihar, Mr. Ajitabh Kumar, was connected during the hearing and requested to provide technical assistance for scientific investigation. The SP, SDPO and SHO were directed to coordinate with ADG SCRB to plan scientific investigation steps.
After that order, the SHO, Bihiya Police Station, filed a supplementary counter-affidavit. It stated that the SCRB had been approached for scientific investigation assistance; that the victim's seized mobile phone had been dispatched to the Central FSL, Hyderabad, on 13 July 2026 through SI Ram Kumar; that the seized mobiles of accused persons had been deposited at the Forensic Laboratory, Patna, for digital forensic examination; that the IO had obtained a judicial order for narco-analysis of the accused; and that non-FIR accused Dharmendra Paswan had been taken on police remand on 10 and 11 July 2026 for sustained interrogation. Witness statements had been recorded under Section 183(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Material witness Manish Kumar Yadav had come forward and steps were taken to record his statement before a Magistrate under the same provision.
The Court's Reasoning for Transferring Investigation to CBI
After hearing both sides, the bench held that the petitioner falls in the category of a ‘victim’ for the purposes of this proceeding. It found, without any iota of doubt, that from the time the FIR was lodged on 14 August 2025, the State investigating agency showed no urgency. The suspects were excise police officials. Witnesses were not examined within a reasonable time. Statements of material witnesses were not recorded before a Magistrate. Only after nine months of FIR registration, and only after court intervention, did the SHO of Bihiya write to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition, Ara for permission to conduct polygraph tests — in that very letter acknowledging that the accused were trying to conceal evidence.
The court found that two of the accused, who were ASIs, were posted at the same locations as the investigating officers, were well connected with personnel at Bihiya and Jagdishpur Police Stations, and had suppressed the victim's mobile phone for days. The IO neither seized the suspects' mobiles promptly nor sent the victim's mobile to FSL for scientific examination. The bench concluded that bias on the part of the State investigating agency could be clearly deduced from the pattern of inaction.
The bench relied on K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police CBCID South Zone Chennai and Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 480, where a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stated that the power to transfer investigation to the CBI must be exercised in rare and exceptional cases — where the court finds it necessary to do justice, to instil confidence in the public mind, or where State police investigation lacks credibility and a fair, honest and complete investigation is necessary. The bench also cited Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha and Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 527, Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 762, and Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 677.
The court acknowledged that transfer of investigation to the CBI is not to be done in a routine manner and that constitutional power to direct CBI investigation must be exercised in exceptional circumstances. It held that the present case falls in the category of rare and exceptional cases. The tangible reasons for lack of confidence in the State agency were plain on the record.
Order
The Division Bench transferred the investigation of Bihiya PS Case No. 296 of 2025 to the CBI (Respondent No. 10) with immediate effect. The SP, Bhojpur, was directed to hand over all documents and materials to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Patna, within one week of the order.
The CBI was directed to take charge with utmost urgency, keeping in mind that Sanoj Kumar has been missing since the evening of 13 August 2025 and was last seen in the custody of the Jagdishpur excise police team. The court noted the petitioner's apprehension that his son has been killed and his body made to disappear.
The Director, CBI, was directed to constitute a team of reputed officers to investigate the matter and submit a report within a reasonable time frame. The CBI was expressly permitted to interrogate police officials who were connected with the earlier State investigation. The court made clear that none of its observations constitute any opinion on the merits of the investigation.
The CBI was directed to submit an action taken report before the next date. A copy of the order along with a complete brief of the case was directed to be handed over to counsel for the CBI by the following day. The matter was listed for 11 September 2026 at 2:15 PM.