2026:UHC:4603 SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 117 of 2026 Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J., Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anugrah Maisey and Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Kuldeep S. Rawal, learned A.G.A., and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder, appear for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel, appears for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 4. By means of the present Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner and the immediate family members of Late Vinay Tyagi, who is alleged to have died in police custody; (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing transfer of investigation of FIR No. 1333 of 2025, dated 24.12.2025, registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, under Sections 109, 121(1), 132, 221 and 324(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for a fair and impartial investigation. 5. Pleadings have been exchanged in the present matter. 6. Insofar as the first relief is concerned, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the institution of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody in connection with a case registered under the provisions of the Gangsters Act. He, therefore, submits that the said relief has become infructuous and does not survive for adjudication. 7. With regard to the second relief seeking transfer of investigation of FIR No. 1333 of 2025 to an independent agency, learned Senior Counsel submits that although the investigation has culminated in submission of a charge-sheet and cognizance has also been taken by the competent court, the mandatory requirement envisaged under Section 176(1-A) Cr.P.C. was not complied with, inasmuch as, no proper magisterial inquiry was conducted into the custodial death in question. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that immediately upon the occurrence of the incident, a magisterial inquiry was directed and entrusted to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who, after conducting the inquiry in accordance with law, submitted his report on 09.03.2026. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the investigation has already been completed; charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent court; cognizance has been taken thereon; two accused persons have been arrested; and the alleged weapon of offence has also been recovered. He further submits that the criminal trial arising out of the said charge-sheet is presently pending consideration before the trial court. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the principal ground pressed in support of the prayer for transfer of investigation is the alleged non-compliance of Section 176(1-A) Cr.P.C. However, the specific stand taken by the State is that a magisterial inquiry was, in fact, conducted by the concerned Judicial Magistrate and a report in that regard was submitted on 09.03.2026. 11. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the investigation has already attained finality with the submission of charge-sheet; cognizance has been taken by the competent court; and the matter is now at the stage of trial. The petitioner shall have adequate opportunity to raise all permissible objections and contentions, including those relating to the fairness, legality or propriety of the investigation, before the trial court in accordance with law. 12. It is well settled that transfer of investigation to another agency at a belated stage, after filing of the charge-sheet and commencement of trial, can be directed only in rare and exceptional circumstances where a clear case of miscarriage of justice is made out. In the facts of the present case, this Court does not find any such exceptional or extraordinary circumstance warranting exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for directing transfer of investigation to any other agency. No material has been placed on record so as to demonstrate that the investigation conducted is vitiated to such an extent as would justify interference by this Court at this stage. 13. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, observed that any observation made herein shall not prejudice the rights of the parties before the trial court, which shall proceed independently and in accordance with law. (Alok Mahra, J.) 09.06.2026 Shiksha