Jharkhand High Court: While deciding a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J., held that the authorities are duty-bound to register an FIR whenever allegations disclose a cognizable offence. Reiterating that the statutory obligation of the police cannot be diluted, the Court, in view of the grave allegations of HIV-infected blood being transfused to minor thalassemia patients, directed the registration of an FIR.-bound to register an FIR whenever allegations disclose a cognizable offence. Reiterating that the statutory obligation of the police cannot be diluted, the Court, in view of the grave allegations of HIV-infected blood being transfused to minor thalassemia patients, directed the registration of an FIR.
Background:
The matter arose when allegations surfaced that HIV-infected blood had been transfused to minor thalassemia patients at the Chaibasa Sadar Hospital Blood Bank in October 2025. The petitioners approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions for lodging of an FIR and constitution of a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to conduct a thorough and time-bound investigation, fixing criminal liability on those responsible.
The petitioners contended that due to acts and omissions of the persons in charge of the blood bank, the lives of five minor children had been imperilled, as they allegedly contracted HIV following transfusions. They argued that infected blood would fall within the definition of “drug” under Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (‘the Act’), and its use amounted to administration of a spurious drug, constituting a cognizable offence under Section 36AC of the Act. They further submitted that despite a written report being filed before the Officer-in-Charge of Chaibasa Sadar Police Station, no FIR had been registered, reflecting neglect of statutory duty.
The State resisted the petition, submitting that no complaint had been lodged by the petitioners or their guardians with the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, and therefore no case had been registered. It was argued that in the absence of a formal written report, the authorities could not be faulted for not initiating criminal proceedings.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that there cannot be any cavil with the legal proposition that the police is under the statutory duty to lodge FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. It was noted that in the copy of the written report annexed with the writ petition, the date was not given but nonetheless observed that the complaint had not been acted upon despite the petitioners belonging to marginalised sections.
The Court highlighted that any of the petitioners, through their guardian, shall lodge a written report before the concerned police station, which shall be registered without any delay, and a copy of the FIR shall be furnished to the informant. The Court further directed that after registration of the FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of the police station concerned shall file a copy of the written report before the Court by way of a counter-affidavit.
The Court accordingly scheduled the matter for further consideration on 18-02-2026.
[Deepika Hembram v. State of Jharkhand, W. P. (Cr) No. 50 of 2026, decided on 04-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Md. Shadab Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Amrita Banerjee, AC to G.P.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
