The Supreme Court has ruled that courts should not routinely fix deadlines for criminal investigations, stressing that time-bound probes must remain an exception. It also set aside the Allahabad High Court’s direction granting protection from arrest to the accused till cognisance.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had granted protection from arrest to accused persons till the concerned court took cognisance of the case. The Apex Court made it clear that such protection from arrest cannot be granted casually while disposing of petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
The Court also strongly reaffirmed that directions for completing investigations within a fixed time must remain an exception and not become a routine practice.
The case arose from an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court passed in petitions filed by the accused persons.
The accused were facing criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3, 25 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The High Court, while refusing to quash the FIRs, had directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 90 days and also ordered that the accused should not be arrested till the trial court took cognisance of the case.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh examined the correctness of this direction.
The Bench noted that the Allahabad High Court had not provided any legal justification for granting protection from arrest, especially in light of settled law laid down by the Supreme Court.
While setting aside the protection from arrest, the Bench observed,
“The text of the order in no way provides or attempts to provide, as in Shobhit Nehra (supra), any justification for granting protection from arrest despite the position of law laid down in Neeharika (supra). Without going further into the issue, we set aside the condition.”
The Supreme Court further emphasised that courts should be slow in fixing rigid timelines for investigation. It reiterated that investigations involve multiple factors beyond the control of investigating agencies and therefore require reasonable flexibility.
In this context, the Bench stated,
“Courts have consistently recognized that directing a timebound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm. Investigation is, as can be seen from the above discussion, a product of many factors and happenings apart from the crime itself, that lend to it a sense of uncertainty and the law therefore accords investigating agencies a reasonable degree of latitude.”
The factual background of the case revealed that the matter originated from an anonymous complaint received by the Senior Superintendent of Police, STF Headquarters, Lucknow.
During inquiry, the anonymous complaint resulted in a statutory complaint alleging that certain individuals had obtained arms licences by submitting forged documents and false affidavits. Acting on these directions, the Special Task Force conducted a detailed inquiry and found serious irregularities.
Based on these findings, it was recommended that a criminal case be registered and a full-fledged investigation be carried out. Accordingly, the FIR was registered.
All three accused persons approached the Allahabad High Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Although the High Court did not allow the petitions seeking quashing of the FIRs, it disposed of them with directions to complete the investigation within 90 days and restrained the police from arresting the accused till cognisance was taken by the trial court.
ALSO READ: “Jailing Is Just Optics”: Supreme Court Slams Colonial-Era Investigation Methods in India
Aggrieved by this protection from arrest, the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court’s order was contrary to the law laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), where the Supreme Court had clearly cautioned High Courts against granting blanket protection from arrest while refusing to quash criminal proceedings.
While analysing the issue, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is very wide and can extend to criminal matters.
The Bench observed that such jurisdiction has often been exercised not only for quashing proceedings but also for other purposes related to criminal justice.
On the issue of investigation and trial timelines, the Court highlighted that the right to a speedy trial, which includes a prompt and fair investigation, is an essential part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench explained that undue delay in investigation harms not only the accused, whose liberty and reputation remain uncertain, but also the victims and society at large, as justice loses its meaning when delayed indefinitely.
The Court observed,
“Courts have consistently recognized that directing a timebound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm. Investigation is, as can be seen from the above discussion, a product of many factors and happenings apart from the crime itself, that lend to it a sense of uncertainty and the law therefore accords investigating agencies a reasonable degree of latitude. At the same time, the Constitution does not permit investigations to remain open-ended. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to a speedy trial, which necessarily includes a timely and diligent investigation, forms an essential part of Article 21, as first recognized by a Constitution Bench in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, and later elaborated by another Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak…”,
the order read.
The Bench further clarified the limited circumstances in which courts may impose investigation timelines. It held,
“The necessary conclusion to be drawn from the above discussion is that timelines are not drawn by the Court to be followed by the investigators/the executive right from the beginning, for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter.”
Explaining this further, the Court stated,
“Timelines are therefore imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse consequences i.e., there is material on record demonstrating undue delays, stagnation, or the like. In sum, timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically. As such, the timelines imposed by the High Court need to be interfered with and set aside. Ordered accordingly”,
it stated.
On the issue of protection from arrest, the Supreme Court relied heavily on its earlier judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., where High Courts were specifically cautioned against passing orders directing that “no coercive steps” be taken or that accused persons should not be arrested till completion of investigation, especially when quashing petitions are not entertained under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution.
Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court set aside both the protection from arrest and the direction for a time-bound investigation.
However, the Bench granted limited relief to the accused by directing that the interim protection already granted would continue for a period of two weeks. After the expiry of this period, the investigating authorities would be free to take all actions permissible under law.
The appeal was argued on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh by Advocate-on-Record Ruchira Goel, while Senior Advocate Pradeep Kumar Rai appeared for the respondents along with several other advocates.
Case Title:
State of U.P. v. Mohd Arshad Khan
Citation 2025 INSC 1480.
Read Judgement:
Read More Reports On Criminal Investigations
