Independent investigation may follow a charge-sheet where fairness is doubtful; CBI transfer upheld and further court monitoring limited.

A constitutional court may transfer an investigation to an independent agency even after a charge-sheet has been filed where the inquiry appears incomplete, misdirected, or compromised by involvement of police officials, in order to secure a fair, credible and impartial investigation. Applying that principle, the investigation into Tulsiram Prajapati's killing was ordered to be transferred to the CBI because the record indicated links with the larger Sohrabuddin conspiracy, prior complaints of fear for life, multi-State police involvement, and inadequacy of the State probe. Once the CBI files its report before the competent court, further Supreme Court monitoring is ordinarily unnecessary and the matter proceeds before that court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court can direct investigation by an independent agency after the State police has filed a charge-sheet, and (ii) whether the investigation into the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati should be transferred to the CBI, and (iii) whether further monitoring of the investigation by the Court is required after the CBI files its report.

Issue (i): Whether the Court can direct investigation by an independent agency after the State police has filed a charge-sheet.

Analysis: A charge-sheet does not exhaust the constitutional power of the Court to ensure a fair investigation in an appropriate case. Where the investigation appears to be incomplete, not in the proper direction, or involves senior police officials, the Court may transfer the matter to an independent agency to secure complete justice and public confidence in the process.

Conclusion: The Court can direct transfer of investigation to an independent agency even after filing of a charge-sheet.

Issue (ii): Whether the investigation into the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati should be transferred to the CBI.

Analysis: The record disclosed serious circumstances showing that the death of Tulsiram Prajapati was linked with the larger conspiracy surrounding the abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi. The Court relied on the earlier findings of strong suspicion that Prajapati was the third person, his prior complaints expressing fear for his life, the involvement of police personnel from more than one State, and the inadequacy of the State investigation. In such a situation, permitting the State police to continue would undermine confidence in the inquiry.

Conclusion: The investigation was rightly ordered to be transferred to the CBI.

Issue (iii): Whether further monitoring of the investigation by the Court is required after the CBI files its report.

Analysis: Once the investigating agency completes its work and files the charge-sheet or report before the competent court, the matter ordinarily belongs to that court for trial and further proceedings. Continued Supreme Court monitoring is generally unnecessary, though liberty remains to seek appropriate directions if required.

Conclusion: Further monitoring by the Court was not directed after the CBI's investigation report is filed before the competent court.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded. The State authorities were directed to hand over the case records to the CBI, which was to investigate all aspects of the death and report to the competent court, while the petitioner was left free to seek consequential relief before that court depending on the outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appropriate case, the constitutional court may transfer investigation to an independent agency to secure a fair, credible, and impartial inquiry, even after a charge-sheet has been filed, and especially where the allegations implicate police officials and the investigation concerns a connected larger conspiracy.

---