Jharkhand High Court orders CBI probe over ‘custodial assault’ allegations against Enforcement Directorate officials

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi heard the criminal writ petition filed by two ED officers on March 11.

“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. In that view of the matter, the Court finds that there is an exceptional circumstance to hand over the matter to the CBI,” the court said on March 11.

Instruction of ‘higher-ups’

• The allegations stated that the informant, one Santosh Kumar, suo motu hit his head by way of a jug kept on the table.
• However, Kumar claimed that it was the petitioners who hit his head and that is the subject matter of investigation and in view of that, the FIR cannot be quashed.
• The petitioners happened to be ED officials who are investigating high-profile cases related to the state of Jharkhand.
• The Jharkhand Police has also lodged two cases against the informant, allegedly acting in haste, which also suggests that they did so on the instructions of higher-ups.
• The two agencies being central government agencies as well as the state machinery are fighting among each other with regard to the informant’s allegations.
• The fairness of the investigation is important not only for the accused but even for the victim.

High court’s earlier orders

• During the early stages of the case, the high court had already passed several interim directions.
• On January 16, 2026, the court stayed further proceedings in the FIR against the ED officers and directed that CCTV footage from the ED office premises be preserved.
• The court also ordered the Union home secretary to arrange security through paramilitary forces such as the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) or the Border Security Force (BSF) for the ED’s Ranchi office in view of concerns raised about disruption of the agency’s functioning.

State raises dispute over roster

• During the hearing, the state also raised an objection regarding the roster, arguing that the case should not be heard by Justice Dwivedi.
• Rejecting the objection, the high court held that the bench had jurisdiction to hear criminal writ petitions relating to the Delhi Police Establishment Act and matters concerning the CBI.
• The court observed that recusal cannot be demanded by litigants and warned against attempts at forum shopping or bench hunting.

FIR against ED officers

• The case stems from an FIR registered on January 13, 2026, at Airport Police Station in Ranchi based on a complaint by Santosh Kumar, the principal accused in the Rs 23-crore Peyjal scam involving alleged misappropriation of government funds from the drinking water and sanitation department.
• Kumar alleged that he was assaulted, wrongfully confined and threatened by ED officers during questioning at the agency’s Ranchi office on January 12.
• The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including section 109(2) (attempt to murder), section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), section 117(2) (grievous hurt), section 127(2) (wrongful confinement), section 351(2) (criminal intimidation), section 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), section 238 (causing disappearance of evidence) and section 3(5) (acts done with common intention).
• The complaint alleged that the ED officers had physically assaulted Kumar while interrogating him in connection with the money laundering investigation.

Plea by ED officers

• The accused ED officials – Pratik, assistant director, and Shubham Bharti, assistant enforcement officer – approached the high court challenging the FIR registered against them.
• They sought quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from Airport Police Station registered earlier this year or transfer of the investigation to the CBI to ensure an impartial probe.
• Appearing for the officers, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju argued that the FIR was a retaliatory attempt to derail the ED’s ongoing investigation into the Peyjal scam and to intimidate the agency’s officers.
• He submitted that the Ranchi Zonal Office of the ED was currently handling several sensitive investigations involving influential political figures and senior bureaucrats in Jharkhand.

ED’s version: injury self-inflicted

• According to the ED officers’ petition, Kumar appeared voluntarily at the agency’s Ranchi office on January 12, 2026, without any summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
• During the interaction, when questioned about the alleged siphoning of public funds in the Peyjal scam, Kumar reportedly became agitated and struck his own head with a glass water jug placed on the table.
• The officers stated that the injury was minor and self-inflicted.
• They told the court that Kumar was immediately taken to Sadar Hospital in Ranchi where he received medical treatment and was discharged after being declared medically fit.
• A second medical examination later the same evening also recorded only a superficial scalp wound and confirmed that there were no other injuries suggestive of custodial violence.

ED alleges attempt to sabotage probe

• The ED argued before the high court that the FIR was part of a “pre-planned tactic” aimed at obstructing ongoing investigations involving influential individuals in the state.
• The agency claimed that Kumar himself was the principal accused in the Peyjal scam and had already been chargesheeted in a police case registered in December 2023.
• According to the ED, its money-laundering probe revealed that Kumar had siphoned off approximately Rs 23 crore of government funds and laundered the proceeds through shell entities, including a company named M/s Rockdrill Constructions.
• The agency further claimed that Kumar had admitted during the investigation that roughly 10 per cent of the tender value in certain government contracts was siphoned off as illegal commission and distributed among various officials.
• It was alleged that around Rs 12 crore had been withdrawn in cash and distributed among senior officials linked to the department.

State opposes transfer of probe

• Senior advocate Nnagamnthu S, appearing for the state of Jharkhand, opposed the plea to transfer the investigation to the CBI, arguing that law and order is a state subject and that the police were competent to investigate the allegations.
• The senior counsel appearing for the state argued that the court should not interfere with a police investigation at a preliminary stage unless exceptional circumstances were established.
• The informant’s counsel also alleged that the ED officials had suppressed crucial facts and pointed out that CCTV cameras, mandated by Supreme Court guidelines in interrogation areas, were not properly installed in the ED office.