In an important ruling reinforcing the balance between judicial oversight and investigative autonomy, the Supreme Court has held that courts must refrain from routinely directing time-bound investigations in criminal cases. Such directions, the Court clarified, should be issued only when the record demonstrates undue delay, stagnation, or investigative inaction.
The judgment was delivered in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Arshad Khan, where the Supreme Court set aside orders of the Allahabad High Court that had directed completion of investigation within 90 days and granted protection from arrest to the accused.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh emphasised that time-bound investigation is an exception, not the rule, and cautioned against judicial interference at the threshold stage of investigation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from three similarly worded judgments of the Allahabad High Court passed on petitions challenging an FIR relating to alleged forgery and misuse of arms licences.
The High Court had:
- Directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 90 days
- Ordered that the accused should not be arrested until the trial court takes cognisance of the offences
Aggrieved by these directions, the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and interfered prematurely with the investigative process.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
Allowing the State’s appeals, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in issuing directions for a time-bound investigation or granting blanket protection from arrest.
Time-Bound Investigation Must Remain an Exception
The Bench reiterated that courts have consistently recognised that directing a time-bound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm.
The Court observed that:
- Investigations are dynamic and unpredictable
- They often involve reassessment, recalibration, and unforeseen complications
Describing the investigative process, the Court remarked that it can be:
“At times straight, at other times one of lots of twists, turns and recalibrations and in yet others, frustratingly round-about.”
This recognition, the Court said, necessitates granting reasonable latitude to investigating agencies.
Judicial Timelines Should Not Encroach Upon Executive Functions
A crucial aspect of the judgment is the Court’s emphasis on separation of powers. The Bench cautioned that imposing timelines from the very beginning of an investigation would amount to “stepping on the toes of the executive.”
The Court clarified:
- Timelines are not meant to guide investigations prophylactically
- They are imposed reactively, only when failure to do so would cause adverse consequences
“Timelines are imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse consequences… Timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically,” the Court observed.
This articulation draws a clear boundary between judicial supervision and executive discretion.
Reasons for Delay in Investigation Recognised
The Supreme Court acknowledged that delays in investigation may arise for legitimate reasons, including:
- Witnesses turning hostile or resiling from statements
- Documentary evidence becoming unusable
- Discovery of new facts requiring further inquiry
The Court emphasised that these are practical realities of criminal investigation that cannot be ignored while assessing investigative timelines.
Impact of Legal Proceedings on Investigation
The judgment also highlighted how legal proceedings frequently intersect with investigations, affecting both their pace and direction.
The Court noted that:
- Applications for anticipatory bail or regular bail can cause temporary pauses
- Courts may direct further investigation, seek clarifications, or order a change of investigating officer
- Each such intervention may require investigators to revisit and restructure their approach
These judicial interventions, though lawful, can naturally extend the duration of investigation, the Court observed.
Right to Speedy Trial Includes Timely Investigation
While cautioning against mechanical directions for time-bound investigation, the Supreme Court also reaffirmed that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to timely and diligent investigation.
The Court observed that undue delay prejudices all stakeholders, including:
- The accused, whose liberty and reputation remain under a cloud
- The victim, who is denied timely justice
- Society at large, which has an interest in effective law enforcement
Thus, the challenge lies in balancing investigative realities with constitutional mandates.
“It is this balancing role that the judiciary plays,” the Court noted.
High Court Erred in Granting Protection from Arrest
In addition to setting aside the direction for a time-bound investigation, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting protection from arrest until cognisance was taken by the trial court.
The Bench observed that:
- Blanket protection from arrest interferes with statutory powers of investigation
- Such relief cannot be granted mechanically without satisfying legal standards
However, considering the circumstances, the Supreme Court ordered that interim protection already granted would continue for two weeks, after which all actions permissible in law may follow.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This judgment carries substantial importance for criminal jurisprudence in India.
1. Reinforces Investigative Autonomy
The ruling underscores that investigation is primarily an executive function, and courts must exercise restraint.
2. Clarifies When Time-Bound Investigations Are Permissible
Courts may impose timelines only when material on record shows undue delay or stagnation.
3. Strengthens Separation of Powers
The judgment reiterates that judicial supervision should not transform into executive control.
4. Balances Speedy Trial with Practical Realities
The Court harmonises Article 21 rights with the complexities of real-world investigations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of UP v. Mohd. Arshad Khan serves as a critical reminder that criminal investigations cannot be placed on a judicial stopwatch unless circumstances clearly warrant such intervention.
While reaffirming the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial, the Court has cautioned against routine judicial interference that may undermine investigative efficacy. By holding that time-bound investigations must remain the exception, the judgment strikes a careful balance between individual liberty, effective investigation, and institutional boundaries.
This decision will likely serve as a guiding precedent for High Courts while dealing with petitions seeking time-bound investigation or protection from arrest at the FIR stage.
Also Read
Specific Performance Decree Remains Enforceable Despite Delay in Payment: Supreme Court
