https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283113 An accused has no right under Article 32 to choose the investigating agency or insist on investigation by a particular method, and a transfer prayer made directly by the accused or indirectly through next friends is ordinarily not maintainable. The Court therefore rejected the request for transfer to a special agency or for court-monitored investigation. It also held that requests for release from custody, forensic examination outside the State, and similar ancillary reliefs must be pursued before the competent jurisdictional court under ordinary criminal procedure, not in Article 32 proceedings. The petition was not entertained on merits for the requested investigative and custodial reliefs, leaving the accused free to seek remedies before the proper courts. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:18:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283113 An accused has no right under Article 32 to choose the investigating agency or insist on investigation by a particular method, and a transfer prayer made directly by the accused or indirectly through next friends is ordinarily not maintainable. The Court therefore rejected the request for transfer to a special agency or for court-monitored investigation. It also held that requests for release from custody, forensic examination outside the State, and similar ancillary reliefs must be pursued before the competent jurisdictional court under ordinary criminal procedure, not in Article 32 proceedings. The petition was not entertained on merits for the requested investigative and custodial reliefs, leaving the accused free to seek remedies before the proper courts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283113