ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for transfer of investigation of the case registered vide FIR No. 99/2020 dated 18.08.2020 at Police Station, Lambagaon, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘CBI’). VERSION OF PETITIONER: 2. Petitioner is son of late Sh. Kartar Chand, who breathed his last on 17.8.2020. On the fateful day, late Sh. Kartar Chand informed the petitioner at about 7.30 P.M. that he was invited by Sh. Manohar Lal, President, Gram Panchayat, Alampur along with Andresh Sayal alias Raju for a get together at Walia Restaurant. On the asking of his father, petitioner brought a bottle of liquor for him. Thereafter, Andresh Sayal purchased “Chicken Rahra” from the shop of petitioner and left on his scooty with late Sh. Kartar Chand on the “pillion. 3. Petitioner after 9.00 p.m. made various phone calls to Andresh Sayal to enquire about the whereabouts of his father and every time it was assured that Sh. Kartar Chand would return shortly. Petitioner went home after waiting for his father at shop expecting his father to reach home by himself. 4. On reaching home, the petitioner received a phone call from Andresh Sayal at about 10.21 p.m. and it was informed that they were sitting near a “Peepal tree” and father of petitioner would return in 10 minutes. Petitioner again made a phone call to Andresh Sayal after some time, on which, he was informed that his father had fallen down from the terrace of Police Station, Alampur and was not able to speak. 5. Petitioner thereafter rushed to the spot along with his brothers and found the main door of Police Station locked. Soon they found the body of their father lying on a road outside the Police Station without slippers which were lying aside. It was noticed by them that the hair, shirt and trouser worn by late Sh. Kartar Chand were wet and the body had cooled down. No blood was found on the body except some blood particles on the button of shirt of the deceased. Petitioner and his brothers noticed Andresh Sayal and Constable Shashi Pal hiding behind the bushes. Andresh Sayal was standing in a submissive state with folded hands and Shashi Pal was in his underwear and vest. No blood was found on the body except some blood particles on the button of shirt of the deceased. Petitioner and his brothers noticed Andresh Sayal and Constable Shashi Pal hiding behind the bushes. Andresh Sayal was standing in a submissive state with folded hands and Shashi Pal was in his underwear and vest. They arranged for a taxi and took their father to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. 6. Constable Shashi Pal had also forcibly entered the taxi when it was about to leave for hospital and on the way he had tried to impress upon the petitioner and his brothers that their father had died due to fall and there was nothing in the case. They were threatened to hush up the matter. This was repeated by Constable Shashi Pal in the hospital also. The FIR was registered on 18.8.2020 on the statement of petitioner recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. GRIEVANCE OF PETITIONER: 7. Feeling dis-satisfied with the investigation carried by the police, in the case, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition. According to petitioner, he and his brothers apprehended a serious foul play. According to him, late Sh. Kartar Chand was murdered by Andresh Sayal in conspiracy with Manohar Lal, President, Gram Panchayat, Constable Shashi Pal, Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar and Home Guard Ashok Kumar, who were present and posted in Police Station, Alampur at the time of incident. As per petitioner, the investigation conducted by the police was not fair for the reasons that the police intended to protect and save its officials. Petitioner alleged the motive of murder of his father to be inimical relations between Andresh Sayal and his father. 8. Petitioner has pleaded the following reasons for his apprehension of biasness: (i) The factum of death of Sh. Kartar Chand was not communicated to the petitioner in time; (ii) The body of Sh. Kartar Chand was found to have cooled down by petitioner and his brothers when they reached the spot; (iii) Hair, shirt and trouser of Sh. Kartar Chand were wet; (iv) There were no blood on the body of Sh. Kartar Chand except a few stains of blood on the shirt; (v) Ambulance was not timely called by the persons accompanying Sh. Kartar Chand; (vi) Constable Shashi Pal was heavily drunk and had forced his entry into the car carrying Sh. Kartar Chand were wet; (iv) There were no blood on the body of Sh. Kartar Chand except a few stains of blood on the shirt; (v) Ambulance was not timely called by the persons accompanying Sh. Kartar Chand; (vi) Constable Shashi Pal was heavily drunk and had forced his entry into the car carrying Sh. Kartar Chand along with petitioner and his brothers with a purpose to threatened him to hush up the matter; (vii) There were no blood stains on the spot where Sh. Kartar Chand was stated to have fallen; (viii) The body of Sh. Kartar Chand was intentionally removed to the road with a purpose to obliterate the evidence. 9. Challenge to the investigation carried by the Police has been laid on following grounds: i) Inaction of police in not investigating the role of police officials present in the premises on the date of incident; (ii) Police had intentionally omitted to incorporate all the crucial facts narrated by the petitioner in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C.; (iii) No eye witnesses were associated by the police, according to whom, the police officials were heavily drunk on the night of incident; (iv) Questions have been raised about the medical reports of respondents No. 7 to 9 who were found to have not consumed alcohol on the night of incident; (v) The injury found on the head of Sh. Kartar Chand could not be result of a fall; (vi) Absence of blood stains on the spot where Sh. Kartar Chand had fallen, cast serious doubt on the story propounded by the police; (vii) The police ignored the statement of Sh. Vishal S/o Sh. Jagat Ram, Sh. Vishal Kumar S/o Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Pratap Chand. 10. Per contra, the respondents have denied the allegations levelled in the petition. It has been averred on their behalf that the investigation was done in unbiased manner. Only a Police Post is located in Alampur and on the night of 17.8.2020 only three officials namely Constable Shashi Pal, Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar and Home Guard Ashok Kumar were present in the Police Post. It has been averred on their behalf that the investigation was done in unbiased manner. Only a Police Post is located in Alampur and on the night of 17.8.2020 only three officials namely Constable Shashi Pal, Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar and Home Guard Ashok Kumar were present in the Police Post. On receipt of information about the incident, SHO, Police Station, Lambagaon had initiated inquiry even before registration of FIR and in order to avoid possibility of obliteration of evidence, he had got conducted the medical examination of all the three officials present in the police post. They were not found to have consumed alcohol. In investigation, it was found that Andresh Sayal was in possession of a premises adjoining to the Police Post and had a common staircase through which he could reach the terrace of his building. Since the main door of police post was closed during night, Andresh Sayal in the first instance entered the Police Post from back side door and climbed up the stairs where three officials were making preparations to have meal. He sought permission from officials to bring Sh. Kartar Chand with him, who did not object. After having gossip for some time, it was found that Kartar Chand had walked out and later it was found that he had fallen from the stairs and was lying in injured condition. In order to take him to hospital, he was lifted towards the road from backdoor of Police Post. Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar had gone towards market on his motorcycle to search for some conveyance, but due to night hours, he could not readily find any vehicle. In the meantime, petitioner and his brothers arrived and they took the injured Sh. Kartar Chand towards hospital where he was declared brought dead. 11. On 18.08.2020, after registration of FIR, the spot was got inspected from a team of forensic experts, who after detailed analysis had opined that the nature of injuries suffered by Sh. Kartar Chand and also the spot position suggested a fall from staircase as cause of injuries suffered by Shri Kartar Chand. In the postmortem report of the deceased also nothing incriminating was found. The reports prepared by the Forensic Science Laboratory, after analyzing the evidence collected from the spot, were also not suggestive of any foul play. Kartar Chand and also the spot position suggested a fall from staircase as cause of injuries suffered by Shri Kartar Chand. In the postmortem report of the deceased also nothing incriminating was found. The reports prepared by the Forensic Science Laboratory, after analyzing the evidence collected from the spot, were also not suggestive of any foul play. The deceased, in fact, was found to have consumed a huge quantity of alcohol as the Chemical Analyst had reported presence of 196.45 mg% of ethyl alcohol in the blood sample of Sh. Kartar Chand. Similarly, ethyl alcohol to the extent of 113.84 mg% was found to be present in the blood sample of Andresh Kumar. 12. During investigation, Andresh Sayal was discharged under Section 169 Cr.P.C. The investigation is not yet closed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Advocate General for the State. ANALYSIS 14. The prayer of the petitioner for transfer of investigation of the case from the State Police to CBI is based upon his apprehension as to the fairness in investigation of the case. Merely because the petitioner perceived the events to have happened in a particular manner, cannot be a ground to transfer the investigation of the case. There has to be existence of some tangible material to afford credence to the apprehensions expressed by petitioner. 15. There is nothing unusual in the fact that the body of Sh. Kartar Chand was found on the roadside by petitioner and his brothers instead of the place where he had fallen. It is but natural that once an incident of the sort had happened, the persons around would have immediately lifted the injured from the spot to a place from where he could be taken to hospital in some mode of conveyance. The fact that Sh. Kartar Chand was without slippers cannot also be a ground to raise suspicion on the conduct of the respondents. Admittedly, Sh. Kartar Chand was wearing loose slippers which could have fallen on the road in the process when the injured was being carried. 16. The allegation that no blood was found on the body of Sh. Kartar Chand does not appear to be genuine. It is not the case of petitioner that they had not noticed grievous injury/wound on the head of his father when he first saw him lying on the road. 16. The allegation that no blood was found on the body of Sh. Kartar Chand does not appear to be genuine. It is not the case of petitioner that they had not noticed grievous injury/wound on the head of his father when he first saw him lying on the road. It has also not been stated by petitioner that the blood in fact had clotted and was not oozing or flowing from the wound. 17. Why Andresh Sayal and police officials had not removed the injured to the hospital is not without plausible explanation It has been explained that though Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar had gone towards the market side on his official motorcycle to look out for a conveyance, but had not found the same immediately due to night hours. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that ambulance was immediately available on call. Because the petitioner and his brothers could arrange the taxi, does not imply that respondents No. 5 and 7 to 9 had intentionally omitted to arrange the conveyance. 18. The allegation as to destruction of evidence is also falsified by fact that on 18.8.2020, a team of forensic experts had inspected the spot and had found blood stains on the spot as well as on the footrest of scooty lying parked nearby. 19. The allegation that Andresh Sayal had murdered Sh. Kartar Chand on account of past enmity also does not appear to be convincing. It is the case of petitioner himself that on the fateful night Andresh Sayal and Kartar Chand had gone together to have marry making in the company of Manohar Lal, President, Gram Panchayat. There is nothing to suggest that Andresh Sayal had any friendship or special relationship with police officials so as to join them in accomplishing murder of Sh. Kartar Chand. 20. The contention that the Investigating Agency i.e. the State Police is trying to save its own officials also appears to be mere assumption of petitioner. It is on record that on the intervening night of 17/18.08.2020 all the three officials who were present in the Police Post, Alampur were got medically examined and their blood/urine samples were preserved to assess the presence of alcohol. No alcohol was detected in either of the samples of the officials. It is on record that on the intervening night of 17/18.08.2020 all the three officials who were present in the Police Post, Alampur were got medically examined and their blood/urine samples were preserved to assess the presence of alcohol. No alcohol was detected in either of the samples of the officials. Had there been any intent or attempt to suppress the genesis of the happening by police, the SHO, Police Station, Lambagaon would not have resorted to the immediate action of getting his own officials medically examined. 21. It is well settled that the investigation can be transferred from local police to CBI only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine. In State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571 , a Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the 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 and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 22. 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 and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 22. Reference can also be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and others (2013) 12 SCC 480 , wherein it has held as under: “13. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having “a fair, honest and complete investigation”, and particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies…... 17. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the Court could exercise its Constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. Such as where high officials of State authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased.” 23. In the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2015) 9 SCC 795 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as under: “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. 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 a given 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 extra ordinary 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. 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.” 24. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with an identical issue in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others (2020) 14 SCC 12 and after exposition of the past precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, it has been held as under: “46. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with an identical issue in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others (2020) 14 SCC 12 and after exposition of the past precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, it has been held as under: “46. The principle of law that emerges from the precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances”. In assessing the plea urged by the petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power. It is necessary to address the grounds on which the petitioner seeks a transfer of the investigation. ……….” CONCLUSION: 25. On examination of the facts of the case at the touch-stone of the above noticed elucidation of law, we don’t find it to be an exceptional case warranting transfer of investigation from local police to CBI. From the record that has been perused by us, we are satisfied as to the credibility of the investigation carried by the police. There is nothing to suggest that the investigation has been done in a biased manner. Petitioner has not been able to place on record any material sufficient to shake the judicial conscience of the Court. 26. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.