JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner moved an application before S.S.P. Dehradun, stating therein that he is working at Muskat, Oman. On 04.10.2015, he was informed by his brother-in-law that his son Siddhartha Chandel has died and asked him to come immediately. After receiving this information, he came to India and could know that on 04.10.2015 his son Siddhartha Chandel had gone with his friends Manish and Yash (respondent nos.4 and 6 herein). At about 04:30 pm, Akash Rana, Rambo and Moni came to his house and told his younger son Shubham that his son Siddhartha has died due to drowning and asked him to accompany them. On this information, his younger son went along with those persons. His younger son also gave this information to his brother-in-law. The dead body of his deceased son Siddhartha Chandel was found in Yamuna river which was taken into possession by P.S. Kalsi. After preparing the inquest report, body was referred to Dehradun for post-mortem. On 06.10.2015, post-mortem was conducted at Doon Hospital, Dehradun. In post-mortem, cause of death due to drowning could not be established, hence, viscera of brain preserved for chemical analysis. Petitioner alleged that his son had returned after completing Merchant Navy training and denied the fact of death of his son by drowning as he was an experienced swimmer. Petitioner suspected murder of his son and hence moved an application before the S.S.P., Dehradun. On the basis of his application, F.I.R. was lodged and case crime no.19 of 2015 under Section 302 and 120-B of IPC was registered at P.S. Kalsi against respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. Investigation was conducted by the civil police. However, the investigation was subsequently handed over to CBCID on the request of the petitioner, where after CBCID carried out the investigation and filed final report in the matter. Being dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the Civil Police as well as by CBCID, petitioner, father of the deceased, has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs, among others: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to further investigate or investigate afresh the matter and submit its report after proper investigation of the mysterious death of Siddhartha Chandel." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner's son has died in mysterious circumstances. He would further contend that the petitioner's son was in Merchant Navy and he was a well-trained swimmer, as such, question of drowning in river does not arise; further in the inquest report and post-mortem report, contusion over right eye and blood stained injury on the head were found and there were also swelling present in genitals and both eyes of the deceased. Learned counsel would contend that all the circumstances, under which the deceased died and the ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased, leaves no room for doubt that petitioner's son has been murdered, but there has been no proper investigation by the Civil Police as well as the CBCID. According to the petitioner, the local police as well as CBCID did not conduct fair investigation and filed final report wrongly declaring that the deceased has died due to drowning in river. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the CBI to make fresh investigation so that truth could be ascertained and justice may be done. In support of his case, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws of the Hon'ble Apex Court: i) Hema vs. State Through Inspector of Police, (2013) 10 SCC 192 ii) Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana and others, (2016) 2 SCC 259 : 2016 (2) NCC 783 iii) Rashmi Behl vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 145, (2015) 12 SCC 531 : 2015 (2) NCC 697 iv) Neelam Mishra vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 12 SCC 775 v) Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (2) Supreme 644 3. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court: i) Jayanti Prasad Deorari vs. Union of India, 2015 (1) U.D. 653 ii) Suresh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., 2017 (2) U.D. 374 : 2017 (3) NCC 579 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State on behalf of the Investigating Officer. In the counter affidavit, the I.O. has denied the averments made in the writ petition. Mr. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State on behalf of the Investigating Officer. In the counter affidavit, the I.O. has denied the averments made in the writ petition. Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that if the Court comes to the conclusion that fair and proper investigation has not been carried out by the Civil Police or the CBCID, the Court may direct for fresh investigation by some other agency. 5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no.3-the C.B.I. stating that the allegations leveled by the petitioner did not calls for invoking writ jurisdiction i.e. issuing direction for CBI investigation, keeping in view the fact that CBI is already over burdened with a number of important case and having acute shortage of manpower. Further, the case also does not involve inter-state ramifications requiring CBI probe. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned Standing Counsel also refers to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pooja Pal vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135 : 2016 (2) NCC 727, wherein it has been held as under: “Despite wide powers conferred by Article 32 & 226 of the Constitution, the court must bear in mind certain self imposed limitations on the exercise of such powers, on so far as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct an investigation, the constitution bench has observed that although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such powers should be exercised, such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has leveled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary powers must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide confidence or instill confidence in investigation or where the incident have national or international ramification or where such order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. Otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases, under the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations." 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 7. Otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases, under the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations." 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 7. In Hema vs. State through Inspector of Police, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “10. It is settled law that not only fair trial, but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious and it is the immediate requirement of rule of law. As observed by this Court in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2010 (12) SCC 254 , the Investigating Officer cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. It was further observed that where non-interference of the Court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the Court must interfere. Though reliance was placed on the above decision by the appellant, it is not in dispute that in that case, the High Court has concluded by giving detailed reasons that the investigation has been totally one-sided based on malafide. Further, in that case, the charge-sheets filed by the Investigating Agency in both the cases were against the same set of accused. This was not the situation in the case on hand. Though the State Crime Branch initiated investigation, subsequently, the same was taken over by the CBI considering the volume and importance of the offence. 8. In Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “24. Be it noted here that the constitutional courts can direct for further investigation or investigation by some other investigating agency. The purpose is, there has to be a fair investigation and a fair trial. The fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a fair investigation. We are absolutely conscious that direction for further investigation by another agency has to be very sparingly issued but the facts depicted in this case compel us to exercise the said power. We are disposed to think that purpose of justice commands that the cause of the victim, the husband of the deceased, deserves to be answered so that miscarriage of justice is avoided. We are disposed to think that purpose of justice commands that the cause of the victim, the husband of the deceased, deserves to be answered so that miscarriage of justice is avoided. Therefore, in this case the stage of the case cannot be the governing factor. 25. We may further elucidate. The power to order fresh, de-novo or re-investigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. It can never be forgotten that as the great ocean has only one test, the test of salt, so does justice has one flavour, the flavour of answering to the distress of the people without any discrimination. We may hasten to add that the democratic setup has the potentiality of ruination if a citizen feels, the truth uttered by a poor man is seldom listened to. Not for nothing it has been said that Sun rises and Sun sets, light and darkness, winter and spring come and go, even the course of time is playful but truth remains and sparkles when justice is done. It is the bounden duty of a Court of law to uphold the truth and truth means absence of deceit, absence of fraud and in a criminal investigation a realand fair investigation, not an investigation that reveals itself as a sham one. It is not acceptable. It has to be kept upper most in mind that impartial and truthful investigation is imperative. If there is indentation or concavity in the investigation, can the ‘faith' in investigation be regarded as the gospel truth? Will it have the sanctity or the purity of a genuine investigation? If a grave suspicion arises with regard to the investigation, should a Constitutional Court close its hands and accept the proposition that as the trial has commenced, the matter is beyond it? That is the “tour de force" of the prosecution and if we allow ourselves to say so it has become “‘id'ee fixe" but in our view the imperium of the Constitutional Courts cannot be stifled or smothered by bon mot or polemic. Of course, the suspicion must have some sort of base and foundation and not a figment of one's wild imagination. Of course, the suspicion must have some sort of base and foundation and not a figment of one's wild imagination. One may think an impartial investigation would be a nostrum but not doing so would be like playing possum. As has been stated earlier facts are self- evident and the grieved protagonist, a person belonging to the lower strata. He should not harbor the feeling that he is an “orphan under law". 26. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside, and it is directed that the CBI shall conduct the investigation and file the report before the learned trial judge. The said investigation report shall be considered by the trial judge as per law. Till the report by the CBI is filed, the learned trial judge shall not proceed with the trial. A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the CBI to do the needful. 9. In Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dismissing petition seeking transfer of investigation of all First Information Reports lodged against the petitioners to the NIA/CBI, has observed as under: “43. As per law laid down by this Court in the above case when the power can be exercised even after the commencement of the trial there cannot be any fetter to the power of this Court in transferring the investigation even after the filing of the charge- sheet but in view of the facts and reasons as stated above present is not a case where this Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 to transfer the investigation in large number of cases enmass registered against the petitioner and other members of the GJM. A judgment on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner is judgment of Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). The above case was a case where daughter of the petitioner died by falling from four storied College Hostel. Petitioner came with the case that investigation conducted by the local police was not fair and the version put up by the police that the girl committed suicide is not correct. In the above context this Court held that a trial based on a partisan, motivated, one-sided, or biased investigation can hardly be fair. Petitioner came with the case that investigation conducted by the local police was not fair and the version put up by the police that the girl committed suicide is not correct. In the above context this Court held that a trial based on a partisan, motivated, one-sided, or biased investigation can hardly be fair. In paragraphs 11 and 12 following has been laid down: “11. Such being the importance of fair and proper investigation, this Court has innumerous cases arising out of several distinctly different fact situations exercised its power of transferring investigation from the State/jurisdictional police to the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Delhi Police Establishment Act. There was mercifully no challenge to the power of this Court to direct such a transfer and in my opinion rightly so as the question whether this Court has the jurisdiction to direct transfer stands authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of W.B v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights ( 2010 3 SCC 571 ). 12. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in such investigation. The decision whether transfer should or should not be ordered rests on the Court's satisfaction whether the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can possibly be prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case will obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to agiven conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim because of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its extraordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply that the transferee agency will necessarily, much less falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. The sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply that the transferee agency will necessarily, much less falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is particularly so when transfer is ordered to an outside agency perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls that are common place when State Police investigates matters of some significance. The confidence of the party seeking transfer in the outside agency in such cases itself rests on the independence of that agency from such or similar other considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee more than any other consideration. Discovery of truth is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than an agency that is independent." 44. The above was a case where writ petition was filed under Article 32 by the victim who is the father of the deceased and the Court was satisfied that circumstances as pleaded by the petitioner required investigation by the independent agency like CBI. The said case was on its own facts and does not help the petitioner in the present case. 45. Judgment of Sanjiv Kumar vs. Om Prakash Chautala (supra) was again a case filed by Sanjiv Kumar who was a whistle-blower alleging large-scale corruption and tampering of records in filling up of about 4000 posts of JBT teachers in State of Haryana. The writ petition filed by Sanjiv Kumar being W.P.(Crl.)No.93 of 2003 was disposed of by this Court directing the complaint to be investigated by CBI. There were certain cases which were under the investigation against the petitioner himself which were also entrusted to the CBI. The said case was on its own facts one does not lend support to the petitioner. 46. Most of the cases which were cited before us by the parties are the cases where this Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 32 in transferring the investigation at the instance of the victims. For a victim the investigation in a case is of much significance. 46. Most of the cases which were cited before us by the parties are the cases where this Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 32 in transferring the investigation at the instance of the victims. For a victim the investigation in a case is of much significance. In the event, a proper investigation is not carried out and relevant evidence which would have been collected by due care and caution, is not collected, the victim is sure not to get justice on such faulty investigation. In case of faulty investigation, where an accused has been wrongly roped in, he has right to seek all remedies before Court of Law for further investigation and a Court of Law is able to marshall all evidence and capable of discerning truth from evidence on record. Although as a principle, there is no fetter on an accused to move a Court of Law for transfer of investigation, but on the facts of this case as noted above, we do not think it to be a fit case where this Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 to transfer the cases enmass to an independent agency. The present case cannot be said to be a case of individual's persecution by the State authority." 10. As observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, if the facts and circumstances of the case warrants so, then to avoid the miscarriage of justice, the court dealing with the matter considers it necessary, may direct de-novo investigation or reinvestigation by CBI. Having regard to the materials on record, in my considered view, the case in hand is not such an exceptional situation warranting special investigation by CBI. But, while doing so, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner, who is the unfortunate father of the deceased, has attempted to point out certain deficiencies and contradictions in the findings of the investigating agency which in my opinion need to be investigated in a dispassionate attempt to discover the truth. All told, the petitioner is totally dissatisfied and disillusioned with the investigation conducted by the Civil Police and the CBCID. That is why he prays for a fair and proper investigation into the episode to bring the truth to light so that justice may be done. 11. All told, the petitioner is totally dissatisfied and disillusioned with the investigation conducted by the Civil Police and the CBCID. That is why he prays for a fair and proper investigation into the episode to bring the truth to light so that justice may be done. 11. Not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. 12. In the light of aforesaid, this Court observes that both the agencies, be it a civil police or CBCID, have failed to make investigation in a fair, unbiased and judicious manner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, constitution of an independent Special Investigating Team, directing fresh investigation in the matter, would best serve the ends of justice. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Uttarakhand shall constitute a Special Investigation Team to carry out fresh investigation in the matter. ii) The S.I.T. shall be constituted within a week from the date of receipt of this judgment. iii) The S.I.T. shall be headed by the Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. iv) The S.I.T. shall conclude the investigation, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. v) Needless to say, the S.I.T. shall investigate the matter independently, impartially and objectively, without being influenced by any kind of prior investigation or final report. 14. No order as to costs.