Introduction

In a heart-wrenching case that highlights both parental anguish and systemic failures in India’s criminal justice system, Rajan Sah, a resident of Muzaffarpur district in Bihar, fought a desperate legal battle to find his missing six-year-old daughter. What began as a festive evening at a local Saraswati Puja celebration turned into a nightmare that would expose serious deficiencies in police investigation procedures and ultimately lead to judicial intervention of the highest order in the state.

This case (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 936 of 2021) provides a poignant window into how India’s judicial system responds when its most vulnerable citizens – children – fall victim to crime. It also demonstrates the extraordinary measures a court may take when conventional investigative mechanisms fail to deliver justice.

The Incident: A Child Disappears

On February 16, 2021, during local Saraswati Puja celebrations, Rajan Sah’s six-year-old daughter was playing near a pandal (temporary structure) erected in front of their home in Brahampura Parmariyh Tola, Muzaffarpur. Amid the festivities, the unthinkable happened – she suddenly vanished.

When she couldn’t be found, Mr. Sah promptly reported the matter to the local Brahampura Police Station the following day, February 17. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered as Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 58 of 2021 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with kidnapping. Mr. Sah provided the police with his daughter’s photograph to aid in the search.

A Father’s Desperate Search

What followed was a painful ordeal for the family. According to Mr. Sah’s petition, he received disturbing information during his own attempts to locate his daughter:

1. On March 22, 2021, an unknown woman approached him claiming his daughter had been taken to Bairiya after being abducted.
2. A fruit vendor named Rahul Sah from Bairiya Golambar told the petitioner that his daughter was in Danapur, but warned him not to disclose this to authorities. Disturbingly, this person demanded ₹2 lakhs (approximately $2,400) for the child’s release.
3. Further complications arose when on June 7, 2021, four individuals (Pankaj Sah, Rita Devi, Munni Devi, and Rita Devi’s mother) allegedly began harassing and assaulting the petitioner’s family members. Rita Devi, wife of Baiju Mahto, reportedly threatened the family with “dire consequences.”

Throughout this period, Mr. Sah made repeated representations to police authorities at various levels, including:

• The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur
• The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Region
• The Director General of Police, Bihar

Despite these efforts, according to Mr. Sah, the local police failed to take appropriate action toward recovering his daughter.

The Legal Battle Begins

Frustrated by the lack of progress, Mr. Sah filed a criminal writ application in the Patna High Court on August 26, 2021, seeking the court’s intervention to direct investigating agencies to locate his missing child.

The Patna High Court first took up the case on May 5, 2022 – over eight months after the petition was filed. The delay was partly attributed to limitations in court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once hearings began, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad recognized the gravity of the situation and directed the respondents to file counter affidavits and produce the case diary.

The Police Response

The police, in their response to the court, claimed that:

1. During their investigation, a juvenile suspect was apprehended and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board in Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur on March 8, 2021, and a chargesheet was filed against him.
2. Rahul Kumar, whom Mr. Sah had named as a suspect, was arrested, investigated, and subsequently released on Personal Bond on April 4, 2022.
3. The Investigating Officer had searched for CCTV footage from the Pooja Pandal and contacted other potential witnesses with photographs of the child, but claimed no reliable information could be extracted.
4. A list of 30 orchestra players in the area was collected and shown the girl’s photograph, but nobody identified her.

As the court proceedings continued, the police filed a total of five supplementary counter affidavits, claiming they were taking the case seriously and making best efforts to recover the child.

The Court’s Intervention

Upon examining the case diary, Justice Prasad made several disturbing observations on June 28, 2022:

1. The Investigating Officers had “only done the paper work” and made “ornamental observations” repeatedly claiming that despite efforts, no information could be gathered about the missing girl.
2. One suspect, Akash Kumar, had made a startling claim that his brother Manish had sold one of his own three daughters (aged about 3 years) to a human trafficking gang – yet police had not pursued this critical lead.
3. The same suspect had offered to provide information about the missing girl for ₹1 lakh but was released on personal recognizance bond at the Deputy Superintendent’s instance, with no further follow-up.
4. Supervision by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was conducted at long intervals without verifying whether previous directions to the Investigating Officer had been followed.

The court noted that the police officers appeared to lack sensitivity toward the gravity of the case – the kidnapping of a six-year-old girl. Justice Prasad observed:

“To this Court, prima-facie, it appears that the I.O. as well as the Dy.S.P. have not given much attention to this Court and the fact that a 6 years old girl has been kidnapped has not sensitized these police officers to act swiftly to recover the girl.”

Special Investigation Team and Court Monitoring

Dissatisfied with the progress, the court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur to:

1. Review the matter immediately
2. Constitute a fresh Special Investigation Team (SIT)
3. Personally supervise the investigation
4. Appear before the court on the next hearing date

Over the next few months (July-September 2022), the court continued to monitor the case through regular hearings, demanding updates from senior police officials who were ordered to appear in person. Despite these interventions and the formation of a new SIT, no substantial progress was made in recovering the child.

The Decision to Transfer the Case

By September 30, 2022, after monitoring the case for three months with no meaningful results, the court concluded that “the State machinery is not able to lay its hand upon the accused and recover the minor victim girl.” It directed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) be added as a respondent in the case.

In its final judgment delivered on December 5, 2022, the court identified several serious deficiencies in the police investigation:

1. No immediate wireless message was sent to nearby police stations when the child went missing.
2. The CCTV cameras installed near the location were not seized for scientific analysis.
3. The Investigating Officer had stopped recording progress in the case diary after April 30, 2021, indicating that investigation had effectively ceased for over a year.
4. The police had failed to pursue critical leads, including the suspect who admitted to taking the child on his motorcycle.
5. Despite directions to obtain Call Detail Records (CDR) for certain mobile numbers as early as April 8, 2021, no follow-up was evident.

Legal Principles and Precedents

In making its decision, the court relied on several important precedents:

1. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) – This Supreme Court judgment affirmed that High Courts have wide powers to address injustice and can “mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances of the case.”
2. K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID (2013) – This reinforced the principles for when a case should be transferred to the CBI.
3. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) – This judgment emphasized that the twin purposes of “fair and proper investigation” are: first, that the investigation must be unbiased, honest, and in accordance with law; and second, that the entire emphasis should be on bringing out the truth of the case.

The court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s caution that transferring cases to the CBI should not be done routinely but should be reserved for exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to “provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations” or “for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights.”

The Constitutional Dimension

Justice Prasad emphasized that the right to a proper, fair, and speedy investigation is part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He also highlighted the State’s duty under Article 15(3) read with Article 39(f) of the Constitution to make laws to protect women and children.

The court observed that while laws like the Juvenile Justice Act and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act exist, their implementation remains poor, with the goals set by these laws “still far from being accomplished.”

The Court’s Final Order

On December 5, 2022, nearly 22 months after the child’s disappearance, the Patna High Court allowed the writ application and issued the following directives:

1. The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with directions to take over immediately.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur was ordered to hand over all materials collected during the investigation to the CBI.
3. The CBI was expected to proceed expeditiously, giving “top priority” to rescuing the child from her kidnappers.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur was directed to examine the role of the Investigating Officers and supervisory authorities responsible for delays, and to take appropriate administrative action against erring officials.

Broader Implications

This case highlights several significant issues in India’s criminal justice system:

1. Lack of Specialized Agencies: The court noted that in Bihar, “there is no special investigating agency to deal with the case of kidnapping of minor girl/child.”
2. Inadequate Police Training: The court observed that local police often handle such sensitive cases in a routine manner, showing no urgency, and that many investigating officers are “completely untrained and insensitive.”
3. Justice for Victims: The judgment poignantly notes that “Justice from victim’s point of view remains a hollow and shallow concept” when investigating agencies fail in their duties.
4. Constitutional Obligations: The case underscores the state’s constitutional duty to protect children and women, and shows how the judiciary can step in when executive agencies fail to fulfill this obligation.
5. Parental Persistence: Perhaps most importantly, the case demonstrates how a parent’s unwavering determination to find their child can activate the highest legal mechanisms of the state.

Conclusion

More than a legal judgment, this case represents a father’s relentless pursuit of justice for his missing daughter. It exposes critical gaps in how India’s criminal justice system responds to crimes against children while simultaneously demonstrating the crucial role that the judiciary can play in addressing these deficiencies.

The Patna High Court’s intervention—compelling the appearance of senior police officers, scrutinizing investigation procedures, and ultimately transferring the case to the nation’s premier investigating agency—represents an extraordinary exercise of judicial authority prompted by extraordinary circumstances.

For Rajan Sah, the judgment offers renewed hope in finding his daughter. For society, it serves as a stark reminder of the challenges in protecting vulnerable children and the continuous work needed to strengthen investigation mechanisms for crimes against minors. For legal practitioners and policy makers, it highlights the critical importance of specialized, sensitive, and scientifically sound investigation procedures in cases involving children.

As this case proceeds under CBI investigation, it stands as a testament to both the heartbreak of a missing child and the potential of judicial intervention to correct systemic failures in the pursuit of justice.

Read
the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjOTM2IzIwMjEjMSNO-o2fkXok1HT0=