$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010451692026 + CRL.M.C. 7057/2026 & CRL.M.As. 29471-29474/2026 DR SATISH LAMBA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Ms. Sonali Tiwary, Ms. Ekta Chandani, Ms. Deepti Sirohi, Advocates with Petitioner (in- Person). versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate for State. Inspector Vandana with SI Mahesh Chand. Mr. Saurabh Soni, Ms. Mannat Singh, Mr. A. Mehrotra, Mr. Kratmey Goel and Mr. Sanjeet Thakur and Mr. Pavan Vashisht, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 22.09.2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, is directed against the order dated 7th August, 2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in State v. Abhinav Tomar2, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner seeking further investigation in FIR No. 283/2024 was dismissed. 1 “BNSS” 2 Misc. No. 895/2026 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 10:54:35 2. The Sessions Court has considered the various grounds urged by the Petitioner seeking further investigation and, upon examination of the material available on record, has come to the conclusion that no further investigation is warranted. The Court has, inter alia, observed that no fundamental infirmities can be found in the investigation and that the material on record does not disclose any mala fide on the part of the Investigating Agency or any deliberate suppression of vital evidence. 3. This Court has perused the impugned order as well as the material placed on record. At this stage, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from that taken by the Sessions Court. However, counsel appearing for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to one aspect concerning the laptop of the deceased, which, according to the Petitioner, has not been effectively examined. 4. In this regard, it has been stated by SI Mahesh Chand, P.S. Kalkaji, that the laptop of the deceased was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory3 for examination, but the same was returned as the device was password- protected. The Petitioner submits that the deceased was employed with Ernst & Young and that the possibility of obtaining access to the said device, through the employer, has not been explored. 5. In light of the foregoing, the Investigating Officer is directed to contact Ernst & Young and ascertain whether the requisite password, recovery key or other means of access to the laptop of the deceased can be obtained from the employer. In the event access to the laptop is made available, the Investigating Officer shall have the device re-examined by the FSL. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 10:54:35 6. In the event such examination yields any material having a bearing on the merits of the case, the same shall be placed before the Trial Court, and a copy thereof shall also be furnished to the Petitioner in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall, thereafter, be at liberty to seek such appropriate directions from the Trial Court as may be available in law before the Trial Court. 7. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 as 3 “FSL” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 10:54:35