Sitting in a packed courtroom on Thursday afternoon, the Delhi High Court delivered a sharp and somewhat emotional judgment in the long-running case of the mysterious death of 23-year-old Arnav Duggal. After years of petitions, status reports, and uneasy hearings, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela finally ruled that the matter must be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court said too many gaps in the local investigations had created “a compelling need to ensure truth is not lost”.
The atmosphere in Courtroom No. ..... was tense. Arnav’s mother, who has been fighting since 2017, sat silently while the bench read out portions of what can only be described as a stern indictment of the investigative process.
Read also: Bombay High Court Faults EPFO’s Recovery Move, Says Due Process Skipped in Nashik Sugar Factory Lease Dispute
Background
Arnav Duggal, a young hotel management graduate employed at ITC Grand Bharat, was found dead on 13 June 2017 at the Dwarka flat of his friend Megha Tiwary. The Delhi Police initially treated the case as a suicide. But as the petition pointed out, several details didn’t add up.
The mother’s complaint, later supported by multiple court-monitored observations, described inconsistencies: missing photographs, late or incomplete call-detail records, refusal to examine alternative possibilities, and even a polygraph test on Megha that a court earlier found “rudimentary”.
According to the judgment, the Magistrate had repeatedly flagged these issues beginning in 2018, yet “successive investigative officers showed exceptional stubbornness and resistance to even the possibility of any alternative view”.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Safety Gaps in Railways, Seeks Clear Timeline on Track & Crossing Upgrades,
Court’s Observations
Justice Gedela’s order reads less like a routine direction and more like a careful, almost anxious, judicial introspection.
The Court began by acknowledging the “emotion of a mother who lost her only son” and the equally delicate position of the young woman involved, noting that both sides deserve fairness in full measure.
But the deeper concern was the investigative vacuum. The Court listed several reasons:
- Ignored forensic red flags: Even after a Magistrate questioned why no ligature marks appeared on the back of the neck-a point normally inconsistent with typical hanging-no effective steps were taken.
“Such a grave observation should have propelled meaningful investigation,” the bench observed, adding that its absence was “a telling aspect” of the probe’s quality. - Polygraph test concerns: The Court noted that a previous judicial officer had found the test on Megha “formalistic”, something the police never addressed.
- Missing or delayed records: Visitor registers, CCTV footage, landline data, and mobile records were either unavailable or obtained after repeated nudges. The Court remarked that it had “never come across such utter helplessness” from an investigating agency, especially when evidence was time-sensitive.
- Pre-set suicide theory: Despite alternate possibilities, officers “kept the investigation on a particular predetermined track”, which the Court said was inconsistent with a neutral probe.
Read also: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects UCO Bank Plea After Hearing Fraud Claim Over Disputed Solan
After reviewing Supreme Court precedents on when investigations should be transferred, Justice Gedela concluded that this case met the threshold of “exceptional circumstances”.
“The hallmark of a transfer,” the bench remarked, “is the perceived independence of the transferee agency.”
Decision
In the final paragraphs, the Court said a protest petition before the Magistrate would be “futile”, as the lower court lacks the power to transfer the probe. Given the nature of the lapses, the Court held that only a specialized agency can carry forward the investigation meaningfully.
The Delhi High Court therefore directed that the entire investigation in FIR No. 45/2018 be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a fresh, independent inquiry.
Read also: Haryana High Court Quashes Rejection, Says Son of Reinstated Employee Entitled to Compassionate
The order ends with a clear expectation: that the CBI must re-examine all evidence-including forensic gaps, missing records, and the circumstances of the death-to ensure that “truth is finally unearthed”.
Case Title: Anu Duggal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 2091/2019
Case Type: Criminal Writ Petition (seeking transfer of investigation)
Decision Date: 28 November 2024
