Punjab & Haryana HC Orders CBI Investigation in NDPS Case, Quashes Charge Framing After Doubts Over Lovkesh Kumar's Arrest Timeline

The High Court found that Lovkesh Kumar was picked up at 5.38 a.m. on 11 August 2024 but shown arrested only after midnight, casting doubt on the prosecution's account of events in the Hisar NDPS case.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has directed the CBI to conduct further investigation in an NDPS Act case registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar, and has quashed the order framing charges against the accused dated 13 November 2024. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, sitting singly, passed the order on 1 July 2026 in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Kusum Rani, wife of accused Lovkesh Kumar, and Lovkesh Kumar himself. The court's central concern was a gap of roughly eighteen to nineteen hours between CCTV-recorded footage of Lovkesh Kumar being taken away by CIA-II police officials in the early hours of 11 August 2024 and his formal arrest, which was shown only after midnight on 12 August 2024. The police explanation for that gap — that he was released to an acquaintance named Ramesh Kumar at 11.00 a.m. on 11 August 2024 — was directly contradicted by Ramesh Kumar's own statement.

The NDPS FIR and the Disputed Chain of Custody

FIR No. 283 was registered on 12 August 2024 under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Police Station Adampur. According to the investigating agency, its team acted on secret information received at around 9.00 p.m. on 11 August 2024 that Lovkesh Kumar was selling intoxicating tablets. The team reached the spot, and Lovkesh Kumar attempted to flee but was apprehended. A search compliant with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was conducted and 900 tablets of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate were recovered. The FIR was registered at about 1.00 a.m. on 12 August 2024. On the disclosure statement of Lovkesh Kumar, co-accused Deepak was also apprehended. A charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 193(2) BNSS) was filed before the Special Court at Hisar against Lovkesh Kumar and Deepak, and charges were framed on 13 November 2024.

The petitioners' case was materially different. Kusum Rani stated that CIA-II police officials had come to their home in village Kabrel, District Hisar, and taken away Lovkesh Kumar at 5.38 a.m. on 11 August 2024. This was captured on CCTV cameras. She, along with her mother-in-law, a friend of her husband, and the village Sarpanch, went to the police station at around 8.00 a.m. the same morning but received no explanation. She alleged the police had unlawfully detained him and later manipulated records to show the arrest at a different time.

Kusum Rani made representations to the Director General of Police, Haryana, seeking an SIT inquiry. The representation dated 22 October 2024 was supported by CCTV footage, mobile tower data, and other material.

The Superintendent of Police Inquiry and Conflicting Statements

On the basis of the representations, the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, initiated an inquiry. The statements of several witnesses were recorded. SI Inder Singh, the first investigating officer, stated that ASI Ram Mehar had brought Lovkesh Kumar to the Special Staff, Hisar, at approximately 5.00–6.00 a.m. on 11 August 2024 for interrogation, that the interrogation concluded by 11.00 a.m., and that Lovkesh Kumar was then released. These events were, according to SI Inder Singh, documented in Roznamcha reports No. 03 and 08.

ASI Ram Mehar corroborated that version. He stated that Lovkesh Kumar was released at approximately 11.00 a.m. and was handed over to Ramesh Kumar son of Jagdish, who had presented himself at the Special Staff claiming to be Lovkesh Kumar's friend. ASI Ram Mehar said both Lovkesh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar had appended their signatures on the release record.

Ramesh Kumar's statement was diametrically opposite. He denied that the custody of Lovkesh Kumar had ever been handed over to him at 11.00 a.m. on 11 August 2024. He stated that he had gone to the police station on the morning of 12 August 2024 along with Kusum Rani to bring food, and that his signatures had been taken on the representation that it was a formality for anyone visiting a prisoner.

Based on these statements, the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, recommended disciplinary action against ASI Ram Mehar — but only to the limited extent that there was a lapse in not handing over Lovkesh Kumar to members of his immediate family, which violated established protocols. No action followed beyond that recommendation.

SIT Investigation Pursuant to the High Court's March 2026 Order

When the present petition was filed and notice was issued, the State filed two affidavits maintaining that the investigation had been conducted fairly. On 13 March 2026, the High Court passed an order directing the State to move an application for further investigation before the appropriate court within three days, to conclude that further investigation within four weeks, and to submit a report to the court of competent jurisdiction. Further proceedings were stayed in the meantime.

An application was accordingly moved before the Trial Court on 17 March 2026 and was allowed on the same day. An SIT was constituted and submitted a report to the Trial Court on 15 April 2026. Thereafter, another SIT was constituted by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, comprising Mayank Mudgil, IPS, ASP Hisar; Kishori Lal, HPS, DSP Agroha; Inspector Vikash, Addl. SHO, PS Adampur; and ASI Rohtash No. 1104/HSR, PS Adampur. This SIT concluded its investigation on 22 May 2026.

The SIT's findings were mixed. It found that the recovery of narcotic tablets from Lovkesh Kumar had been made in the presence of Gazetted Officer Ram Niwas, Tehsildar Adampur, and that if the recovery had been false, the accused could have informed the Gazetted Officer at that time. A WhatsApp call recording produced by Lovkesh Kumar merely showed a call appearing on the screen but did not confirm any allegation. The SIT concluded that no evidence had emerged to establish that the FIR was false or that Lovkesh Kumar was falsely implicated. However, it also found the manner in which Lovkesh Kumar was handed over to Ramesh Kumar — rather than to family members — to be suspicious, even though ASI Ram Mehar denied any negligence.

How the Court Analysed the Legal Position on CBI Investigation

Justice Bedi examined a series of Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the petitioners' counsel. From State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 141, the court drew the proposition that a High Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence within a State without the State's consent, and that such a direction does not violate the federal structure or the doctrine of separation of powers.

From Rubabbudin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 738, and State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2011(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 152, the court noted that a CBI investigation can be ordered even after a charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed. The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not circumscribed by the limitations in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. that confine subordinate courts to “further investigation” rather than fresh or de novo investigation.

From E. Sivakumar v. Union of India, 2018(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 111, the court extracted that an accused has no right of hearing as a matter of course before a direction for CBI investigation is passed, since a person named as an accused in an FIR has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation.

From Disha v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 13 SCC 337, the court noted that transfers to the CBI have been ordered when the accused were powerful or influential persons, or when high police officials were involved and the investigation had not proceeded in the proper direction or had been biased.

The court also referred to its own earlier judgment in Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust v. State of Punjab, 2023 NCPHHC 137868, where it had held that a shifting stand by the investigating agency warranted transfer of investigation to an independent agency.

Synthesising these authorities, Justice Bedi held that the court could order a CBI investigation even after a report under Section 193(2) BNSS had been submitted, that the accused need not be heard before such an order, and that the critical preconditions were a biased or doubtful investigation — particularly where police officials themselves were implicated — or where the matter involved powerful parties.

Why the Court Found the Prosecution Version Doubtful

Justice Bedi identified two central difficulties with the State's position. First, the gap between Lovkesh Kumar's recorded pick-up at 5.38 a.m. on 11 August 2024 and his formal arrest after midnight was not genuinely explained. The CCTV footage of the pick-up was not disputed. The investigating agency's own inquiry acknowledged the pick-up. Second, the explanation that Lovkesh Kumar was released at 11.00 a.m. to Ramesh Kumar, and thereafter committed an NDPS offence the same night, was directly and categorically contradicted by Ramesh Kumar himself. Ramesh Kumar stated he had signed papers on the morning of 12 August 2024 — when he accompanied Kusum Rani to the police station with food — under the impression that any visitor was required to sign. He denied ever receiving custody of Lovkesh Kumar.

The court held that the prosecution version appeared “somewhat doubtful” in light of Ramesh Kumar's unequivocal statement. It further observed that where a person appears to have been falsely nominated as an accused in a case carrying a minimum sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment under the NDPS Act, a fair and impartial investigation by an independent agency was imperative for the unvarnished truth to surface. The SIT's finding that the handing over of custody to Ramesh Kumar was itself suspicious, combined with Ramesh Kumar's denial, meant the SIT's overall clean chit to the investigation could not be accepted at face value.

The court noted that the petitioners were not seeking quashing of the FIR but only further investigation by an independent agency. If the CBI reached the same conclusion as the police, the consequences for Lovkesh Kumar would follow. If CBI investigation led to a different result, the Trial Court would be at liberty to examine both the original charge sheet under Section 193(2) BNSS and the supplementary report under Section 193(8) BNSS, and proceed to charge or discharge the accused in accordance with the dictum in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others, 2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 197.

Order

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi allowed the petition and passed the following directions:

• The order framing charges dated 13 November 2024 is quashed.
• Further investigation of FIR No. 283 dated 12 August 2024 under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, Police Station Adampur, District Hisar, is handed over to respondent No. 7, the CBI.
• The CBI shall conduct further investigation and endeavour to conclude it within three months.
• The CBI is at liberty thereafter to file a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (Section 193(8) BNSS).
• The Trial Court shall consider both the original report under Section 193(2) BNSS and the supplementary report filed by the CBI, and shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law keeping in view the dictum in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others.

The petition was disposed of accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of.